Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 63, 786.00 on the basis of two bonds dated 5th February 1952 and 29th March, 1952 respectively. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows: The defendant No. 1 was a public limit ed company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Sri N. L. Bidani was its General Manager and a director. The de fendant No. 1 promised to pay a sum of Rs. 48, 000.00 and another sum of Rs. 15.000.00tmder two bonds dated 27th March, 1952 and 5th February, 1952 respectively with interest at 7 per cent, per annum within two years from the date of the respective bonds. The plaintiff alleged that on 29th August, 1952 the defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rupees 10, 000.00 to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as part payment of the loan dated 27th March, 1952 but nothing was paid towards the loan due under the bond of 5th February, 1952. Subsequently the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 assigned the said debts under the said bonds to the plaintiff by virtue of two assignment deeds dated 21st February, 1955. The plain tiff asked the defendant No. 1 to make pay ment of the debts due under the said two bonds but it failed to do so; hence the suit for the aforesaid relief was filed.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the de fendant No. 1. Originally on 20th July, 1955 a written statement was filed by N. L. Bidani on behalf of defendant No. 1. However, on 3rd December, 1955 another written state ment was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1, which was signed by Lachman Das, a director of the company. It was admitted in the second written statement filed on be half of defendant No. 1 that the defendants 2 and 3 had received a sum of Rupees 10, 000.00 from the funds of the defendant No. 1. The other allegations made in the plaint were denied and it was asserted that the alleged two bonds, which were the sub ject-matter of the suit, had not been execut ed by any person having the authority to do to and those bonds had been obtained by coercion, mis-representation and fraud and were, therefore, not binding on defendant No. 1. In regard to payment of Rs. 10, 000.00it was stated that the same was not made towards any particular bond in suit. In re gard to the deeds of assignment in favom of the plaintiff it was alleged that the same were collusive, sham, fictitious and not bona fide. It was further alleged that pursuant to the resolution No. 3 of 29th December, 1951 the entire Sindhwani Agricultural Farm and the stocks in hand with all the implements were to be purchased for a sum of Rs. 1, 75, 000.00 and out of that only a sum of Rs. 50, 000.00 was to be paid in cash and the remaining amount was to be paid within two years from the date of the re gistration. However, instead of carrying into effect the resolution No. 3 the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 gave possession of the entire farm to an employee of the company on 6th February, 1952 but fraudulently and in collu sion with Sri N. L. Bidani executed a sale deed in respect of 246-52 acres only for a sale consideration of Rs. 70.000.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 55, 000.00 was received in cash by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and the balance of Rs. 15, 000.00 was shown due from the com pany. The bond dated 5th February, 1952 was executed in lieu of this consideration and was obtained by fraud and in collusion with the General Manager and was, therefore, void. It was further asserted that the defen dants Nos. 2 and 3 on 6th February, 1952 executed only an agreement of sale of the remaining farm which was also made to defraud the company and was not in ac cordance with the resolution of 29th Decem ber, 1951. The bond dated 27th March, 1952 was a counter part of that agreement according to which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not entitled to recover the balance but could only take possession of tractor etc. and so the bond was not enforceable. As defen dants Nos. 2 and 3 remained in possession of the tractor and other stocks mentioned in the agreement dated 27th March 1952 the defendant No. 1 was not liable for the price of the same. As the bonds were without consideration and executed by an unautho rised person the same were void. It was also contended that the plaintiff is the brother-in-law of defendant No. 3 and was closely related to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The suit had been filed at the instance of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for their benefit and the plaintiff had no right to sue. On these pleadings the Court below framed as many as six issues. It found that the bonds in suit were duly executed on be half of defendant No. 1 and" for considera tion. They were not obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation and were not void. It also held that the plaintiff was a bona fide assignee of the bonds in suit for considera tion. It recorded a finding that the bond dated 5th February, 1952 was not without consideration as alleged in para No. 15 of the written statement. Having found that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum claimed it decreed the suit for the same against the defendant No. 1. Aggrieved by that deci sion the defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the ap pellant attacked all the findings recorded by the Court below. He contended that the bonds in suit were not executed for considera tion and by a person competent to do so on behalf of the defendant No. 1. He also con tended that the said bonds had been obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation and were without consideration, hence void and unenforceable. Lastly it was contended that the assignment of the bonds in suit was not bona fide and for consideration and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The following points, therefore, arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the two bonds hi suit were duly executed for consideration and by a person competent to do so? 2. Whether the said bonds were obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation on the defendant No. 1 and were void and un enforceable? 3. Whether the alleged assignment of the said bonds in favour of the plaintiff was bona fide and for consideration and whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit? Points Nos. 1 and 2. ;