1967 (10) TMI 70 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachhmi Narain.
2. The authenticity of the receipt (Ext. A-4) claimed by the appellant.
3. The significance of the plaintiff's actions and circumstances surrounding the alleged return of the jewellery.
4. The maintainability of the suit based on the alleged fraudulent intent to defeat the claim of Gomtibai.
5. Liability of the appellant as a member of a joint Hindu family for the alleged misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachhmi Narain:
The appellant contended that Lachhmi Narain had returned the jewellery to the plaintiff on April 23, 1942. The burden of proof lay on the appellant. The Trial Court and the High Court found that the receipt (Ext. A-4) was "not genuine." The appellant did not rely on the receipt before the Supreme Court but cited several circumstances to support his claim. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that these circumstances did not assist the appellant's case. The plaintiff's presence in Kanpur on April 23, 1942, did not imply that she received the jewellery from Lachhmi Narain.

2. The authenticity of the receipt (Ext. A-4) claimed by the appellant:
The Trial Court and the High Court both held that the receipt (Ext. A-4) was "not genuine." The appellant did not rely on this receipt before the Supreme Court, effectively conceding its lack of authenticity.

3. The significance of the plaintiff's actions and circumstances surrounding the alleged return of the jewellery:
The appellant cited several circumstances to support his claim that the jewellery was returned, including the plaintiff's presence in Kanpur, the steel box in the plaintiff's possession, a letter (Ext. A-2) listing some jewellery, and the delay in demanding the jewellery. The Supreme Court found that these circumstances, individually or collectively, did not support the appellant's case. The plaintiff's testimony and the absence of a demand during Lachhmi Narain's lifetime were not significant due to the trust reposed in him.

4. The maintainability of the suit based on the alleged fraudulent intent to defeat the claim of Gomtibai:
The appellant argued that the suit was not maintainable because the jewellery was entrusted to Lachhmi Narain to defraud Gomtibai, invoking the maxim "in pari delicto, potior est conditio defendentis." The Supreme Court found no specific plea or issue raised at the trial regarding fraud against Gomtibai. The plaintiff's case was that Gomtibai knew about the jewellery's deposit and agreed that it belonged to the plaintiff. The Court held that the parties were not "in pari delicto" and that the plaintiff did not plead any illegal purpose.

5. Liability of the appellant as a member of a joint Hindu family for the alleged misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain:
The appellant contended that as a member of a joint Hindu family, he was not liable for Lachhmi Narain's alleged misappropriation, citing Toshanpal Singh & Ors. v. District Judge of Agra & Ors. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence of misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain and that the appellant did not prove the debt was "avyavaharika" or illegal. A Hindu son is liable for his father's debts unless they are illegal, and the appellant failed to prove such illegality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decree directing the return of the jewellery or payment of its value. The appellant's contentions regarding the return of jewellery, the authenticity of the receipt, the significance of circumstances, the maintainability of the suit, and liability as a member of a joint Hindu family were all rejected. The appeal was dismissed with costs.