Nawal Kishore, C.J.—This is a defendants regular first appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge decreeing the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 5800/- with costs.

2. The various events in this case date back to 1941 when the defendant was carrying on business in Calcutta and acting as the Managing Director of a firm by the name Film Corporation of India Limited. In the months of May and June 1941, he drew three Hundies in his capacity as Managing Director of the above mentioned firm as per detail below: —

(1) On 31st May 1941 he drew a Hundi for Rs, 1200/- in favour of Mt. S. Devi.

(2) Again on 31st of May 194) he drew a Hundi for Rs.1200/- in favour of Narsingdas Agarwal and Sons.

(3) On 24th of June 1941 he drew a third Hundi for Rs. 2500/- in favour of Narsingdas Agarwal and Sons.

3. The drawee of these Hundies was Madangopal Kabra, 1 Motisil Street, Calcutta. All these Hundies were payable after sixty days and when they were presented to him, he accepted them. Under the acceptance he signed his own name but also added M. D. after his signature. The Hundi in favour of Mt. S. Devi was endorsed to Narsingdas Agarwal and Sons. Accordingly, since payment due under these Hundies was not made on 1st of May 1944, notice was sent to Madangopal Kabra calling upon him to pay the sum of Rs. 490o/-due on account of principal and Rs.8oo/- as interest under the three Hundies and later on, since there was no response to this notice, the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted for the recovery of Rs. 5800/-including interest up to date at 6% per annum. The defendant pleaded that the Hundies had indeed been executed by him as Managing Director of the Company but they had also been accepted by him in the same capacity and not in his personal capacity. He accordingly pleaded that he was not personally liable under these Hundies. He also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest. Several other pleas were raised but they are not material for the purpose of this appeal. The learned District Judge, who tried this suit, came to the conclusion that the defendant had by accepting the Hundies undertaken a personal liability. Accordingly, he passed a decree for the principal amount due and also awarded interest at 6% per annum by force of section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Interest pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum was also awarded till the date of payment.

4. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has confined his arguments in this appeal to two points only, namely—

(1) That the defendant was not liable.

(2) That since Negotiable Instruments Act was not in force in Marwar at the time the suit was instituted, the learned District Judge erred in awarding interest under section 80 of the Act and also in awarding interest pendente lite and future interest.

So far as the first point is concerned, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are firmly of the view that the learned District Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion. As will be clear from the detail given above, the Hundies were executed by Madangopal Kabra as Managing Director of the Company but the drawee of those Hundies and the person accepting them was not the defendant in his capacity as Managing Director. Undoubtedly, when he accepted these Hundies, he added M. D., obviously meaning "Managing Director," after his signature but it is a question whether this addition of M. D. is by itself sufficient to indicate that the defendant had not undertaken a personal liability. This is a point concerning general legal principles surrounding negotiable instruments and we will deal with it presently. It may be pointed out here that P. W. I Dharam-deo, who had arranged the loan, stated that the money had been advanced on the guarantee of the defendant Madangopal and that he had accepted all the three Huudies in his personal capacity. This witness also produced a certified copy of what purports to be the defendants affidavit in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document