1. The defendant, who is the respondent before us, was at alt material times a shareholder of the plaintiff company who are the appellants. The plaintiff company filed a suit, out of which this appeal arises, to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 4,835/- being the amount due in respect of calls made by the company and interest thereon. The contention of the defendant was that the call was not validly made. That contention was accepted by the trial Court which proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs suit. The appellants have now come in appeal.

2. At a meeting of the board of directors held on 3-3-1948 the directors resolved that a further call of Rs. 40/- per share on B Class shares of the company and a notice of one month be given to all B class shareholders to pay the same. The B class shares are of the face value of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 10/- were paid up, and the defendant held 100 B class shares of this company.

Another meeting of the board of directors was held on 22-6-1948 and at this meeting the minutes showed that the opinion of the directors was divided as to the manner of requiring the calls to be paid, and the evidence of the manager, Mr. Sa-mant, on this point is that the division of the directors was on the question as to whether the call should be for Rs. 40/- at one time or whether the call should be by instalments.

They were also divided as to what time should be given if the call was to be by instalments. The minutes of this meeting goes on to state:

"It was therefore resolved that the draft notice be finalised in consultation with the companys solicitors."

It is also in the evidence of Mr. Samant that he had produced before the meeting of the board a notice to be sent to the shareholders with regard to this call prepared by the solicitors.

In this notice there were various blanks which were filled in by him, and turning to this draft notice it proceeds on the basis that the call was payable by four instalments and in this draft notice the dates of payment of the instalments are mentioned, the first instalment being payable on 5-8-1948, the second on 5-9-1948, the third on 5-10-1948 and the fourth on 5-11-1948.

It is not quite clear from the language used in the minutes of this meeting as to what exactly was intended by the expression

"It was therefore resolved that the draft notice be finalised in consultation with the companys solicitors."

But the evidence of Mr. Samant is that he finalised the draft notice himself and then sent out notices to the shareholders in the form of the draft notice which was the final form of the notice.

It is common ground that the final form never came before the board of directors. This particular notice was sent to the defendant on the 7th/9th July 1948 and she was called upon to pay the first instalment on 5-8-1948. As she failed to pay the first instalment, another notice was served-upon her on 17-8-1948 by which she was reminded that the first instalment remained unpaid and notice was given to her to pay the remaining three instalments on the due dates, viz., 5th September, 5th October and 5th November 1948. She failed to pay also the second instalment on the due date and a notice was served upon her on 28-9-1948 reminding her that the two instalments remained unpaid and calling upon her to pay the remaining two instalments on their due dates.

A third reminder was sent to her on 10-11-1948 when she had failed to pay the remaining two instalments and she was requested to pay the whole amount of Rs. 4,000/- with interest thereon due by her. Filially, an attorneys notice was given to her on 26-1-1949 and in this notice it was stated:

"By a resolution of the board of directors, dated 3-3-19.48 it was decided that a further sum of Rs. 40/- per share be called from E Class shareholders. By another resolution of the board of directors of the company dated 22-6-1948 it was decided to forward to the shareholders the notice demanding payment of the said call in the manner decided at that t