LAWS(ORI)-1952-12-5

PRAMOD KUMAR PATI Vs. DAMODAR SAHU

Decided On December 09, 1952
Pramod Kumar Pati Appellant
V/S
DAMODAR SAHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3700/ - on two promissory notes, dated 9 -6 -1941 and 18 -3 -1941 for Rs. 3000/ - each. The suit promissory notes were executed by defendant 1 Damodar Sahu, who was admittedly the manager o the Hindu joint family consisting of himself and the other defendants. He also held a power of attorney, executed by the other members of the family, and was given certain well -defined powers. The suit was filed on 22 -1 -1946 and the plaintiff relied upon two endorsements of payment made on each of the promissory notes, to save limitation. These endorsements were made on 1 -1 -1942 and 24 -1 -1943 by defendant 1 on the hand -notes (which are marked as Exs. 2 and 3) the endorsements being marked as 2A, 2B, 3A and3B respectively. Defendant 4, 10 and 11 contested the suit. The other defendants were ex parte. Defendant 1 did not file any written statement though he appeared in Court. The plea urged on behalf of the defendants (other than defendant 1) was that defendant 1, Damodar Sahu, had no power to borrow on behalf of the family and that neither the handnotes nor the endorsements purporting to have been made thereon by him, would make the other defendants liable for the plaintiff's claim.

(2.) THE learned Judge granted a decree to the plaintiff only against defendant 1 and dismissed the suit as against the other defendants.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the force of the above contentions, it is necessary to state a few more facts at this stage. Defendant 1 was undoubtedly the managing member of the defendants' family which owned a sugar factory at Aska, and he was constantly in need of funds to run the business. The family had also contracted several other debts from various persons. The members of the family had, therefore, authorised defendant 1 to carry, on the business on their behalf, and in particular, to liquidate the family debts. The exact extent of the power conferred on defendant 1 as defined in Exs. 1 and 1 -A is as follows: