9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said bonds to the plaintiff by virtue of two assignment deeds dated 21st February, 1955. The plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 to make payment of the debts due under the said two bonds but it failed to do so; hence the suit for the aforesaid relief was filed. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1. Originally on 20th July, 1955 a written statement was filed by N.L. Bidani on behalf of defendant No. 1. However, on 3rd December, 1955 another written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1, which was signed by Lachman Das, a director of the company. It was admitted in the second written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had received a sum of ₹ 10,000/- from the funds of the defendant No. 1. The other allegations made in the plaint were denied and it was asserted that the alleged two bonds, which were the subject-matter of the suit, had not been executed by any person having the authority to do so and those bonds had been obtained by coercion, mis-representation and fraud and were, therefore, not binding on defendant No. 1. In regard to payment of ₹ 10,000/-it was stated that the same was not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of defendant No. 1 and for consideration. They were not obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation and were not void. It also held that the plaintiff was a bona fide assignee of the bonds in suit for consideration. It recorded a finding that the bond dated 5th February, 1952 was not without consideration as alleged in para No. 15 of the written statement. Having found that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum claimed it decreed the suit for the same against the defendant No. 1. Aggrieved by that decision the defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked all the findings recorded by the Court below. He contended that the bonds in suit were not executed for consideration and by a person competent to do so on behalf of the defendant No. 1. He also contended that the said bonds had been obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation and were without consideration, hence void and unenforceable. Lastly it was contended that the assignment of the bonds in suit was not bona fide and for consideration and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The following points, therefore, arise for consideration in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 by an officer competent to do so and the act of the execution of those bonds by N.L. Bidani was duly ratified by the defendant No. 1. These two bonds were also for consideration and had not been obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. Had it not been so the defendant No. 1 would not have ratified the execution of the same and would in fact have repudiated the same. As indicated above the defendant No. 1 was floated with the main object of purchasing the Sindwani farm including the tractor, machinery etc. and with that end in view a resolution was passed by defendant No. 1 on 29th December, 1951 to purchase that farm for ₹ 1,75,000/-. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 executed a sale deed (Ex. A.12) in respect of 246 acres of land of that farm for ₹ 70,000/- and the defendant No. 1 paid them a sum of ₹ 55,000/- in cash and for the balance amount of ₹ 15,000/- the bond Ex. 14 was executed. P. W. 4 Govind Ram has proved the due execution and also the consideration of the bond. The action of Sri Bidani in executing the bond, as pointed out above, was also subsequently ratified. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that the bond Ex. 14 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assign the two bonds in suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is well settled that an assignee would not get better rights than that of the assignor. The assignment would, therefore, not place the plaintiff in a better position than his assignors. There was, therefore, no reason to make a fraudulent or collusive assignment in favour of the plaintiff. It was, however, vehemently argued that the assignment was fictitious, sham and without consideration. It was pointed out that the assignment deeds (Exs. 5 and 6) were executed on 21st January, 1955. On the same date two cheques for ₹ 4,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- (Exs. 8 and 9 respectively) were issued by Asa Ram Tikam Chand in favour of Govind Ram Narain Das. Both these cheques were cashed on 2nd February, 1955. However, on 22nd January, 1955 one Shanti Devi Sindwani, who is said to be the wife of defendant No. 2, drew a cheque for ₹ 17,000/- in her favour. From Ex. A.6 it appeared that on 22nd January, 1955 a draft for ₹ 7000/4/6 was required to be purchased on the basis of the amount from Shanti Devi Sindwani. Similarly another draft of ₹ 10,006/4/6 was to be purchased from Central Bank on the basis of the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the defendant No. 1 to challenge the assignment. The question of payment of consideration is in fact one between the assignor and the assignee and the debtor can take no advantage of the non-payment of the consideration for the assignment: See Baldeo Sahai v. Harbans, ((1911) ILR 33 All 626) and Mangal Prasad v. Nabi Bakhsh, (AIR 1918 All 371). 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred us to the decision in the case of Kanraj v. Vijai Singh, (AIR 1951 Raj 74) in support of his contention that the assignment can be challenged on the ground of want of consideration on which any other contract can be impeached. That case, however, is not of much assistance. In that case the assignor, who was impleaded as one of the defendants, had alleged that the agreement of assignment was without consideration and void. The debtor had not challenged the validity for want of consideration. On these facts it was held that the assignment could be challenged on the ground including one of want of consideration on which any other contract could be impeached. The plea, however, did not succeed on merits in that case. In the present case, however, the assignors, who were impleaded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
