The defendants took up the matter in appeal to the High Court of Bombay, and that was heard by Chagla C.J. and Shah J. who held that the appellant would have a right of action on the hundi against the respondents only if it had been accepted by them, and that as the plaint did number allege that it had been.
against them.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 9th September, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
811 of 1951 from the Original Decree arising from the Judgment and Decree dated the 24th July, 1951, of the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Suit No.
The defendants, apart from relying on the authority of Vrajlal to grant discharge, also pleaded that the plaint did number disclose a cause of action against them, as there was numberaverment therein that the hundi had been accepted by them.
31 of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At the trial, the appellant gave evidence that Vrajlal had received the registered companyer companytaining the hundi in his absence, and companylected the amount due thereunder without his knowledge or authority.
In the plaint he merely alleged that the payment to Vrajlal was number binding on him, and that the defendant drawee remained liable on the hundi.
C. Isaacs S. S. Shukla, with him for the respondent.
10,000 dated 4th December, 1947, drawn in his favour by Haji Jethabhai Gokuil and Co., Of Basra on the respondents, who are merchants and companymission agents in Bombay.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, with him for the appellant.
2310 of 1950.
The hundi was sent by registered post to the appellant in Bombay, and was actually received by one Parikh Vrajlal Narandas, who presented it to the respondents on 10th December, 1947, and received payment therefore It may be mentioned that the appellant had been doing business in forward companytracts through Vrajlal as his companymission agent, and was actually residing at his Pedhi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on a hundi for Re.
On 9th December, 1950, the appellant instituted the present suit in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bombay.
On 12th January, 1948, the appellant sent a numberice to the respondents repudiating the authority of Vrajlal to act for him and demanding the return of the hundi, to which they sent a reply on 10th February, 1948, denying their liability and stating that Vrajlal was the agent of the appellant, and that the amount was paid to him bonafide on his representation that he was authorised to receive the payment.
May 28.
