The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the validity and liability under hundis.

1. The plaintiffs who are the owners of the shop Bakshi Ram Rodmal at Akola sued defendants: (1) The Berar Oil Works Co., Ltd. of Akola and (2) Balwant Narsinha Mudholkar, on the basis of two hundis for Rs. 5,000 each, of which the plaintiffs were the holders and which were drawn by the Berar Oil Works Co., on itself and endorsed by defendant 2. Defendant 2 died during the pendency of the suit and his son has been substituted in his place. Reference in this judgment to defendant 2 will be for the sake of convenience to the deceased father unless otherwise stated. The execution and nonsatisfaction of the hundis is not denied but it was strenuously contended in the Court below that the hundis were obtained by the plaintiffs by means of undue influence and coercion and also that the subsequent financial arrangements between the plaintiffs' firm and the Berar Oil Mills, which were at the time of the execution of the hundis in a precarious financial condition, have resulted in the extinction of the plaintiffs' claim. There was a further contention that the hundis were not unconditional hundis by reason of the appearance of the word 'jawalun' instead of the normal phrase 'jawal' in the body of the documents, and it was also alleged that since there had been no presentation of the hundis at maturity to either of the defendants who are now being sued in respect of them, no suit based on them could be successfully maintained against either of the defendants. There were other contentions raised by the defence but since they have been given up in appeal although mentioned in the memorandum of appeal there is no need to refer to them further. A decree was passed against both the defendants, the decree against the son of defendant 2 being limited to the assets of his father in his hands. A joint appeal is now preferred both by the Berar Oil Works Co., and by Shridhar Balwant Mudholkar, the son of the original endorser.

2. The appeal was argued by Mr. Chandorkar on behalf of appellant 1 (defendant 2) and Mr. Sindekar the counsel for the other appellant merely adopted the arguments of his colleague so far as they concerned defendant 1. The contentions raised in appeal were those which had been raised by the defence and have been enumerated in the preceding paragraph except that the questions of the non-presentment of the hundis, the non-receipt of notice of dishonour and want of consideration were especially argued on behalf of defendant 2.

3. The first contention centres round the circumstances in which the hundis came to be executed. It is undisputed that at the time when the execution took place, namely 10th May 1921, the Berar Oil Mills had to make an urgent payment of Rs. 5,000 in Bombay and failure to make this payment would have jeopardized their financial position, which was already precarious, very seriously. They had considerable difficulty in raising this money' since their indebtedness in Akola was already known although their credit outside does not appear to have been doubted. The matter was an urgent one and the plaintiffs were approached for a loan of Rs. 5,000. The company was already indebted to them to the extent of some Rs. 80,000 and the plaintiffs state that they refused to advance this money. The defendants then, according to the plaintiffs, offered to draw hundis in favour of defendant 2, who was a man of position and incidentally one of the directors of the company. The plaintiffs alleged that they considered defendant 2's credit only good up to Rs. 10,000 and agreed to advance the Rs. 5,000 required if a hundi for that amount were endorsed by some other person of undoubted solvency, and on these conditions they eventually accepted the hundis and became the holders of the hundis to the extent of Rs. 10,000 payable to defendant 2 endorsed to themselves and another hundi for Rs. 5,000 also payable to defendant 2 but bearing an intermediate endorsement of the firm of Tansukhrai Bansidhar of Murtizapur and subseque