O.C.J. Appeal No. 25 of 1925. Case: Ramprasad Shivlal Vs Shrinivas Balmukund. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | O.C.J. Appeal No. 25 of 1925 |
| Judges | Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and Coyajee, J. |
| Issue | Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) - Section 22(1); Stamp-Indian Stamp Act (II of 2899) - Section 68; Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) - Section 118 |
| Citation | AIR 1925 Bom 527, 1925 (27) BomLR 1122, 90 IndCas 685 |
| Judgement Date | July 10, 1925 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
|
Judgment Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 claimed to be due on three hundis drawn by the defendants on one Chhotaram Javer in < xml:namespace prefix = st1 /> 2. The same objections have been raised before us. The first objection was that the suit was time-barred The defendants in the plaint were described as "Shivlal Rampranad a firm doing business as merchants at Ahmadabad, "and thereafter, when it was discovered that Shivlal Ramprasad was a joint Hindu family doing business under that name, and that the provisions of Order XXX (Civil Procedure Code) would not apply when defendants were members of an undivided Hindu family, the title of the plaint was amended by substituting the names of the members of the family for the firm's name " Shivlal Kainpraead." 3. It was then contended that the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Indian Limitation Act applied, and that the suit was barred, as the suit must be deemed to have been instituted against the defendants when the plaint was amended. The learned Judge considered, on a review of the authorities, that there was not an addition of parties, but only a substitution in order to correct a misdescription, We need only say that we agree with that finding. 4. It was next contended that the plaintiff could not sue as he was a minor at the date of the suit. The plaintiff was not a party to any contract on which ho is suing. He is suing as the bearer of a Shah Jog hundi. We see no reason why he should not be allowed to sue on such a document. This point does not appear to have been raised in the lower Court. 5. The next point was that the hundi is inadmissible as it is post-dated. The question of its inadmissibility would arise under the Indian Stamp Act. It is a bearer hundi payable on demand, and required, therefore, an one anna stamp. But it is said that it was proved that the document was written, not on February 12, the date it bore, but some date in January 1921, therefore it was not properly stamped and, therefore, it infringed the provisions of 9. 68 of the Indian... |
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suit No. 702 of 1948. Case: India Red Lead Factories Co. Vs Pursottamdas Narsingdas. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...or be sued. While dealing with this point his Lordship Mr. Justice Das referred to the case of Ramprasad Shivlal v. Srinivas Balmukund AIR 1925 Bom 527 and the case of Amulakchand v. Babulal reported in AIR 1933 Bom 304 His Lordship Mr. Justice Das approved of the observations of Macleod C.......
-
Suit No. 702 of 1948. Case: India Red Lead Factories Co. Vs Pursottamdas Narsingdas. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...or be sued. While dealing with this point his Lordship Mr. Justice Das referred to the case of Ramprasad Shivlal v. Srinivas Balmukund AIR 1925 Bom 527 and the case of Amulakchand v. Babulal reported in AIR 1933 Bom 304 His Lordship Mr. Justice Das approved of the observations of Macleod C.......