9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (4) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether he played any part in this nefarious affair. Nor was any evidence led on behalf of the 1st defendant. On April 3, at the close of the address of Counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr. Lalji, who had already addressed the Court on behalf of the 2nd defendant applied that the plaintiff may be re-called to give him an opportunity to cross-examine him as to whether the 3rd defendant had given any authority to the plaintiff, express or implied, to remit the money due by the plaintiff to the 3rd defendant by a hundi. The plaintiff, who resides and carries on business, at Hyderabad, was in Bombay on March 29, but he left Bombay after that date, and he was not in Bombay on April 3. I refused the application The 1st and 2nd defendants had every o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e owner for the amount of the hundi. 3. The 2nd defendant is. also liable to pay the amount of the hundi to the true owner. In the case of goods, if a man takes and sells them when he has no right the owner may waive the tort and recover the proceeds in an action for money had and received. And equally if a person wrongfully convert a bill and receive the amount the owner of the bill may either sue in tort or may waive the tort and recover the money as received to his use. The 2nd defendant who came into possession of the hundi through forged indorsements took no property in the hundi. What was done by him amounted to a conversion of the hundi, and the proceeds of the hundi received by him are the moneys of the true owner: Arnold v. Cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bills of Exchange, 8th Edn., p. 61; Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. II, p. 481. In Ex parte Cote ((5) Mellish, L. J., said: In this country, where the sender of a letter cannot get it returned after it has been posted, if the indorsee of a bill authorises the indorser to send the bill through the post office, the bill as soon as it is posted, becomes the property of the indorsee. 6. In that case the authority to send the bills by post was implied from the course of dealings between the parties, but as by the rules of the French Post Office a letter though posted, could be reclaimed before it was despatched from the office where it was posted, it was held that the property in the bills which were posted from Lyons and claimed back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to the plaintiff to send the hundi by post. It is not suggested that there was any express authority. Nor is there any evidence on record of implied authority. There was, therefore, no delivery to the 3rd defendant, and the negotiation of the hundi to him was not completed. The property in the hundi never in fact passed out of the plaintiff, and it remained his property when it reached the hands of the 1st and 2nd defendants. Moreover, the 3rd defendant never claimed any property in the hundi. On the contrary, he enforced his claim by a suit against the plaintiff in the Residency Court. 9. I, therefore, hold that the property in the hundi was in the plaintiff at the date of suit, and pass judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
