AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (1) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the defendant Ram Chandra and one deceased Mukat Lal were the partners of the above mentioned firms and the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Dayal carried on the business of the firm Ratan Lal Rameshwar Daval at Ghaziabad. Meerut, for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff carried on its business in forward delivery transactions in Gur and other commodities through the commission agencies of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 These transactions resulted in certain profits to the plaintiff and on 28th December 1952 there was an accounting between the parties in which the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Daval accepted the liability on their behalf as well as on behalf of other defendants to the extent of Rs 35447/8/9 and agreed to pay the same in six monthly installment of Rs. 1800/-each the first installment falling due on 30th June 1953 This agreement was reduced to writing and since the defendants did not pay the installments as agreed hence the suit for the recovery of the installments due at the date of suit. Interest at the rate of Rs 6/-per annum was also claimed 3. The claim of the plaintiff firm was contested by the defendants. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate court would be as to whether Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Daval had the authority to execute the document on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 The lower appellate court decided the first point against the plaintiff and did not decide the second point. It was only mentioned that the second point had already been decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff as such in case this Court disagrees with the views of the two courts below on the main controversy in dispute the case has to go back for decision on the point or points left undecided by lower appellate court. 7. Aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the two courts below the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court and the main point as already mentioned above is as to whether the document in suit is a promissory note or acknowledgment of liability with an agreement to pay I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and having heard them I am of opinion that the two courts below have erred in construing the document in suit. In my opinion the document in suit is clearly an acknowledgement of liability with an agreement to pay. Before I proceed to discuss the above point it will be pert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which clearly expressed the intention of the parties to the document It was further submitted that the document itself is in a form of a letter wherein there is no express promise to pay. Evidence of the parties was also placed before this Court and it was submitted that neither party termed this document as a pronote. The defendants denied the execution of the document whereas the plaintiff asserted that he treated the document as an acknowledgement. Learned counsel also relied on Mohammad Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh AIR 1936 P.C. 171 and Lala Karam Chand v. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad Aziz Ahmad and submitted that one of the test of the promissory note is its negotiability. The form in which the document had been written shows that the document was not intended to be a negotiable instrument. He further relied on a decision of the Saurashtra High Court Keshavji Thakershi v. Narshi Ramii AIR 1954 Sau 52. This case fully supports the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. Apart from these submissions the learned counsel also submitted that he could fall back on the original transaction and placed reliance on Major Mistri v. Mt. Binda Debi AIR1946All126 . 10. As aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh, on the back thereof payment endorsed in my handwriting, I promise to pay the said amount due to you together with interest at the rate of 1 p.c. per month within three months. Sd. Mukat Singh." In the third case AIR1941All158 the document involved for interpretation read as follows: "Abdul Hamid Mohammad Saeed r/o mauza Almora whereas with regard to glass of Hanuman Glass Works, account is due from us we, therefore, acknowledge and promise to pay on demand Rs. 1781/-with interest at 2 per cent per mensem." This document was held to be a promissory note. 13. These three cases were also relied on by the lower appellate court in coming to the conclusion that the document in suit was promissory note. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do support his contention to a great extent, but on a review of the authorities cited by the parties I have no hesitation in holding that the document in suit is an acknowledgement of liability with an agreement to pay. The tenor of the document is similar to the one found in AIR 1954 Sau 52. In the Privy Council case the document read as follows: &#....