- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krisunanand Nath Khare v. Raja Ram Singh
Judgment Summary — Piggott and Walsh, JJ.
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit was brought on a promissory note of 1917, which the opinion states was a renewal of an earlier promissory note of 1914, itself a renewal of a promissory note of 1911. The note in suit was signed by a single defendant, Babu Ram Baran Singh. The plaintiff sued both Babu Ram Baran Singh and his brother Babu Raja Ram Singh on the ground that the 1917 note was made by Babu Ram Baran Singh as the head and managing member of a joint Hindu family and therefore bound the family, of which Babu Raja Ram Singh was an adult member. The Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited, were also defendants as original payees and endorsers.
At first instance, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit against Babu Raja Ram Singh for want of cause of action on the basis that his name did not appear on the promissory note as a maker. The lower court relied primarily upon the Privy Council decision in Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir Kishan Pershad. The present opinion reviews that dismissal and the legal principles relied upon by the lower court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a promissory note signed by the managing member (head) of a joint Hindu family can, by that signature, bind the joint Hindu family such that other members of the family (specifically an adult member joined as defendant) are chargeable though their names do not appear on the face of the negotiable instrument.
- Whether the principle (from Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir Kishan Pershad) requiring the name of the person or firm to be charged to be clearly stated on the face or back of a negotiable document applies to the case of a joint Hindu family represented by its managing member.
- Whether the dismissal by the Subordinate Judge for want of cause of action as against Babu Raja Ram Singh should stand, or whether the matter must be remitted for trial on the merits.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir Kishan Pershad (Privy Council) | Principle that "the name of a person or firm to be charged upon a negotiable document should be clearly stated on the face or on the back of the document" so that responsibility is plain and instantly recognizable. | The Subordinate Judge relied entirely upon this decision to dismiss the suit against the non-signatory defendant. The appellate court held that this principle, while sound for ordinary business agents, does not apply to the case of a joint Hindu family represented by its managing member. |
| Krishna Ayyar v. Krishnasami Ayyar (Madras High Court) | The judgment (particularly Mr. Justice Shephard's reasoning) supports the view that a joint Hindu family is a legal entity represented by its managing member and that instruments signed by the managing member may be attributable to the family. | The court adopted the reasoning of Justice Shephard (pages 604–606) and followed the principle that the managing member's signature can, in appropriate circumstances, bind the joint Hindu family. |
| Krishnashet bin Ganshet Shetye v. Sari Valjibkatye (Bombay High Court) | Inferential acceptance of the principle that a managing member's acts may bind a joint Hindu family. | The appellate court noted the Bombay High Court's inferential acceptance of the same principle and treated that authority as supportive of the view adopted. |
| Baisnab Chandra De v. Ramdhon Dhor (Calcutta High Court) | Inferential acceptance by the Calcutta High Court of the principle that a joint Hindu family may be bound through the managing member. | The court referenced this decision as further authority following the same view and stated its willingness to follow those decisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by distinguishing the situation of a joint Hindu family from that of an ordinary business agent or firm. It observed that the primary principle relied upon by the court below (from the Privy Council decision) — that the name of the person or firm to be charged must be clearly stated on the negotiable instrument — does not properly apply to a joint Hindu family.
The judges explained that under Hindu law a joint Hindu family is a legal entity lawfully represented by and acting through its managing member (the head). Given the definition of a promissory note in section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as "an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money signed by the maker," the relevant question is whether the joint Hindu family itself is the maker (through the managing member) or whether the signature is that of an individual only.
Relying on and adopting the reasoning of Mr. Justice Shephard in Krishna Ayyar v. Krishnasami Ayyar, and noting inferential support from the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in the other cited decisions, the court concluded that the principle requiring the name to appear on the instrument (as applied in the Privy Council case) is not decisive in cases involving a joint Hindu family represented by its managing member.
The court addressed practical consequences of the contrary view: if every member of a joint Hindu family had to be named or sign negotiable instruments, this would severely disrupt ordinary commercial dealings of joint families — a result which the court considered unlikely to be the legislative intention. The court further observed that even under the view it adopted, questions of fact would remain open in any particular case — notably whether the note was given for bona fide family purposes or whether it constituted a breach of trust by the managing member. Such factual issues should be decided on the merits.
Because the Subordinate Judge had dismissed the suit against Babu Raja Ram Singh for want of cause of action, the appellate court held that the matter must be remitted for trial on the merits so that the substantive factual questions may be determined.
The court also addressed the costs of the appeal: since the point was substantial, had been raised by the defendant in his own behalf, and had resulted in a decree in his favour below, the court ordered that that defendant should pay the costs of the appeal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal was allowed.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The dismissal of the suit as against Babu Raja Ram Singh (for want of cause of action) cannot stand; the case is remitted to be tried on the merits as to that defendant.
- Babu Raja Ram Singh, having raised the point and obtained a decree below, was ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.
Broader implications:
- The court expressly followed earlier High Court decisions that a joint Hindu family may be treated as a legal person represented by its managing member and, in appropriate circumstances, negotiable instruments signed by the managing member can be attributable to the family. The opinion rejects the wholesale application of the Privy Council rule (requiring explicit naming on the instrument) to joint Hindu families.
- The decision emphasizes that factual questions (e.g., whether the instrument was made for bona fide family purposes or constituted a breach of trust) remain open and must be resolved on the merits; the ruling did not purport to lay down a novel legal test beyond the principles recognized in the cited authorities.
Appeal allowed.
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.:— This is a suit, brought upon a promissory note of 1917 which is admittedly a renewal of a previous promissory note of 191 which in itself was a renewal of a previous promissory note or 1911. The promissory note in suit was made by one defendant only, namely Babu Ram Baran Singh. The suit is brought against Babu Ram Barau Singh and also his brother Babu Raja Ram singh upon the ground that the note was made by the ??? Babu Ram Baran Singh as head and manager of a joint Hindu family of which his defendant Babu Raj Ram Singh was an adult member. The Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited, were also made defendants as the original payees and endorsers in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that both the brothers, Babu Ram Baran Singh and Babu Raja Ram Singh, were makers of the original promissory note of 1911 of which the promissory note of 1914 was the first renewal. This fact may be of importance upon the question whether the note sued upon was in fact made for and on behalf of the joint family, of which the defendant Babu Ram Baran Singh was manager, for family purposes so as to bind the members of the family. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that there is no cause of action against the defendant Babu Raja Ram Singh for the reason that his name does not appear as a party to the promissory note in such or as one of the makers thereof or, in other words, to acute the language of Lord Buckmaster in the report of the case decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council relied upon by the court below, upon the ground that the name of Babu Raja Ram Singh was not disclosed. In arriving at that conclusion, the court below has relied entirely upon the judgment of their Lordships in the case of Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir Kishan Pershad , and particularly upon the principle there laid down as follows:—“It is of the utmost importance that the name of a person or firm to be charged upon a negotiable document should be clearly stated on the face or on the back of the document, so that the responsibility is made plain and can be instantly recognized as the document passes from hand to hand.” In our opinion this principle has no application to the case of a joint Hindu family which it is sought to make liable through the signature of the managing member thereof. The position of the head of the joint Hindu family is not the same as that of an ordinary business agent and, according to the true view, a joint Hindu family, being a legal person according to Hindu law lawfully represented by and acting through the managing member or head thereof, is included ordinarily in the term “a person.” In other words, a promissory note, scoring to the definition contained in section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money signed fey the maker, and the question, in the event of the person in whose favour such document is given or into whose hands it may fall, in a case of an alleged joint Hindu family, is whether such a joint Hindu family is in fact the maker or only the member thereof, who happens to have signed the document Accepting the principles laid down in the authority referred to, we are of opinion that they have no application to the case before us. We are content to adopt without repeating at length the judgment of Mr. Justice Shephard in the case of Krishna Ayyar v. Krishnasami Ayyar on pages 604 to 606. The principle accepted by the majority of the Madras High Court in that decision has been inferentially accepted by the Bombay High Court in the case of Krishnashet bin Ganshet Shetye v. Sari Valjibkatye and also by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Baisnab Chandra De v. Ramdhon Dhor and we are content to follow the view taken in these three decisions.
It is extremely difficult to see how any other view could be made to work consistently with the ordinary methods of business and with the established principles of law. If the view taken by the lower court was sound, it would be necessary to require every person who was supposed to be a member of a joint Hindu family from whom it was desired to take a promissory note, to sign a document, including, presumably, even infant children in some way through their guardians. This would make it almost impossible for all practical purposes for a joint Hindu family to make payments or take credit by giving a promissory note at all which can hardly be the intention of the Legislature and the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only other alternative would be to relegate the question of the liability of the joint family to the execution court, to be decided there as a substantive issue of fact, even although a member of such family had been joined as defendant to the suit and a decree had been given in his favour exempting him from liability.
No doubt from one point of view practical difficulties may be pointed out in commercial transactions upon the basis of this view being a correct one. All one can say is that it seems to be an incidence of the difficulty, of applying the legislative provisions of Western law to the ancient customs and traditions of the law of the joint Hindu family; but the mischief of the latent ambiguity involved in the mere signature of the managing member of a firm circulated in the market, even although he may have signed as such managing member for and on behalf of the joint family as a whole which he represents, would still remain, inasmuch as in would always be open to the other members of the family to raise the question whether the promissory note was in fact made for family purposes or as a breach of trust by the persons whose signatures appeared thereon for and on behalf of the joint family. The suit having been dismissed as against the defendant Babu Raja Ram Singh as disclosing to cause of action, it must go back to be tried upon the merits. Inasmuch as the point raised is a substantial and important one and this particular defendant raised it in his own behalf and obtained a decree in his own favour, we think he must pay the costs of this appeal.
Appeal allowed.
Alert