It is enough to state that the defendant admitted the execution of the hundis, but alleged that they had been drawn for purchasing gold in future and since the plaintiffs did number send the gold, the hundis were number honoured or accepted.
P. The companyclusion of the learned Trial Judge on issue No.
I did number receive any numberice to honour these hundis.
On those allegations, the suit was instituted in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur, on January 4, 1949.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1956, of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Regular Appeal No.
Thereupon the Bank returned the hundis to the plaintiffs.
P. I and Ex.
It was thus companytended that the hundis were without companysideration.
I had drawn the two hundis marked Ex.
2 was in these terms Therefore, in this case the plaintiff having paid the penalty, the two documents in suit having been exhibited and numbered under the signatures of the presiding officer of companyrt and the same having thus been introduced in evidence and also referred to and read in evidence by the defendants learned companynsel, the provisions of sec.
All along during the companyrse of the recording of the evidence on behalf of the parties, these hundis have been referred to as Ex.
3 of 1958.
39,615, principal with interest.
1 of 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They are written in Roopchands hand.
The suit was accordingly decreed with companyts, as stated above.
1, 2 and 4 were examined and cross examined with reference to the terms of the hundis and as to who the author of the hundis was.
The most impor tant plea raised by the defendant in bar of the suit was that the hundis were inadmissible in evidence because they had number been stamped according to the Stamp Law.
On those pleadings, a number of issues were joined between the parties, but the only relevant issue was issue No.
On appeal by the defendant to the High Court, the High Court also found that the hundis were marked as Exs.
He was examined as D.W.5, and in his examination in chief he stated, I did number receive any gold towards, these hundis I asked them to return the hundis, but they did number return them.,
On the date of their maturity, the Bank presented those hundis to the defendant, who dishonored them.
2 is thus decided against the defendant.
It is number necessary to set out the defendants written statement in detail.
T. Desai and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants.
The High Court granted the necessary certificate under Art.
His other witnesses, D.Ws.
C. Chatterjee and H. P. Wanchoo, for the respondent.
The defendant respondent is said to have owed money to the plaintiffs, the appellants in this case, during the companyrse of their business as companymission agents for the defendant, at Bombay.
P. 1 and P. 2, with the endorsement Admitted in evidence and signed by the Judge.
It was denied that the defendant owed any amount to the plaintiffs or that the hundis were drawn in payment of any such debt.
P. I. and Ex.
36 of the Stamp Act, which are mandatory, at once companye into play and the disputed documents cannot be rejected and excluded from evidence and they shall accordingly properly form part of evidence on record.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. The substantial question for determination in this appeal is whether or number the two hundis sued upon were admissible in evidence.
The plaintiffs endorsed the two hundis to G. Raghunathmal Bank and asked the Bank to credit their account with the amount on realisation.
April 25.
Towards the payment of those dues, the defendant drew two mudatti hundis in favour of the plaintiffs, for the sum of 35 thousand rupees, one for 20 thousand rupees payable 61 days after date, and the other for 15 thousand rupees payable 121 days after date.
As the defendant did number pay the amount due under those documents on repeated demands by the plaintiffs, they instituted a suit for realisation of Rs.
