Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Resident at Hyderabad (September 27, 1915) (As to the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council from the above-named Court see the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890(53 & 54 Vict. c. 37), s. 9, the Indian Foreign Jurisdiction Order in Council (September 12, 1902), and further Order in Council of March 22, 1913; the effect is that the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable subject to modifications which do not affect the matter. Special leave to appeal from the Residents Court at Hyderabad was given in other cases on March 22, 1913, and December 30, 1916,) reversing a decree of the Assistant Resident and restoring that of the District Judge of Secunderabad.

The appellant sued the respondents to recover Rs. 39,825 as principal and interest due upon fourteen hundis drawn in his favour. The question upon the appeal was whether the Resident had rightly held that having regard to the terms of the hundis, which appear from the judgment of their Lordships, the suit could not be maintained against the first respondent.

1918. Oct. 28, 29. Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown for the appellant. The first respondent was made a party to the hundis by their terms, and the appellant should have been allowed an opportunity to prove by evidence that he was in fact a principal. The Indian Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, does not provide, as the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (Imp.), does, by s. 23, that no person is liable as a party unless he signs the bill. The effect of ss. 26, 27 and 28 of

70 Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 33 ( 1918- 1919) Sadusuk Janki Das V. Maharaja Sir Kishan Pershad

171

the Indian Act is that with regard to the liability of a principal the same rules apply to a negotiable instrument as to any other contract. If the effect of the words "acting in his name" in s. 27 is that the name of the principal must be disclosed, that requirement is satisfied by the terms of the hundis. [Reference was also made to the Indian Contract Act (IX. of 1872), s. 233; and to Kometi Naicker v. Gopala. (( 1913) 1. L. R. 38 M. 482.)]

The respondents did not appear.

Nov. 1. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER. On April 14, 1910, Mohan Lal borrowed from the plaintiffs, who are the appellants on this appeal, the sum of Rs. 35,000, and to secure repayment drew and accepted in their favour fourteen hundis—each for the sum of Rs. 2,500—the first payable ten months after April 14, 1910, and the remainder at successive intervals of one month. Each hundi was in the same form, and it is agreed that the true translation is as follows—

"By order of Sirkar may his happiness increase.

To Mohan Lai, son of Hira Lai

Six months from the date of the execution of this hundi, please pay to Seth Sadasuk Janki Das Sahu of the Residency Bazars or to his order the sum of H. S. Rs. 2,500 (half of which is Rs. 1,250) which sum I have received in cash in the Residency Bazars from the said Seth Sahib.

Dated 3rd Rabi-us-sani 1328-H (April 14, 1910) Mohan Lal (In Urdu),

Acting Superintendent of the Private Treasury of His Excellency Sir Maharaja, the Prime Minister of H.H. the Nizam.”

[On the back]

"This hundi has been accepted by Mohan Lai, son of Hira Lai, in favour of Seth Sadasuk Janki Das, inhabitant of the Residency Bazars, Hyderabad.

Dated 3rd Rabi-us-sani 1328, Hijri Mohan Lal (In Urdu)"

The whole of the hundis were dishonoured, and the appellant accordingly took proceedings, on August 15, 1913, against Mohan Lal and the Maharaja Sir Kishan Pershad Bahadur, the respondents on this appeal, claiming the amounts due upon the hundis with interest. It would, of course, have been open to the plaintiffs had they thought fit to have framed their case in an alternative form, and to have sued both on the hundis and alternatively upon the consideration.

It is indeed urged by the appellants that the plaint in fact embraced both these forms of relief, but their Lordships are unable to acc