R.Balasubramanian, J. - (1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 128 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court at Mayiladuthurai is the appellant in this appeal and the respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. That suit was filed for a declaration that the demand made on the plaintiff by defendants 2 and 3 is unjust. improper and illegal; to direct the defendants to refund the value of paddy and rice delivered by the plaintiff to the Corporation, which value was quantified by him at Rs. 29,316.75 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. thereon from 2.3.1978 as well as subsequent interest till date of payment and for costs. The learned trial Judge on merits dismissed the suit. The correctness of that judgment is being questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff. In this judgment, the parties to the proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The material allegations in the plaint that are necessary and relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows :
(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a hulling and procuring agent by the second defendant in the suit under an agreement dated 15.8.1973. A sum of Rs. 25.000/- in cash was deposited by the plaintiff with the second defendant as security deposit. The said agreement had been renewed from time-to-time. The plaintiff had been procuring paddy; converting the same into rice and forwarding the resultant rice to various places as directed by the officials of the Corporation. The plaintiff had been maintaining the registers and submitting the reports meticulously following the procedure prescribed and the instructions issued by the officials of the Corporation from time-to-time. The plaintiff had been raising bills for the amount payable to him by the Corporation for services rendered. The plaintiff's claim in respect of certain bills (as enumerated in Paragraph 7 of the plaint), is not yet finalised and it is not the subject-matter of the suit.
(3.) For the season Kuruvai and Samba in the year 1974 and for the season Samba in the year 1975, the plaintiff delivered 43,967 bags of boiled rice to the Corporation for movement to various places. The said quantity of rice was moved both by rail wagons and lorries. The commodities were delivered at the loading point by the plaintiff on 100% weighment basis. They were also delivered in the presence of the Loading Inspector, Procuring Officer and the Double Lock Officer of the Civil Supplies Corporation, who were all satisfied about the weighment of the bags so delivered. The Assistant Quality Inspector was also satisfied about the quality of the rice delivered. The delivery was so effected on 100% weighment basis and the consignment was delivered at the loading point to the Officials of the Corporation to be loaded either in the rail wagons or in the lorries. This procedure was as per the directions contained in the proceedings of the Civil Supplies Corporation dated 9.3,1974. As a token of acceptance of the delivery on the said basis, the Double Lock Officer and the Quality Inspector had also signed the weight check memos. While so, the plaintiff was shocked to receive a communication dated 24.9.1977 from the Deputy Manager (Ac189.93 quintals This demand showing shortage was made for the first time after a lapse of three years from the date of delivery to the Corporation. The plaintiff denied his liability for the "alleged shortage" and sent a communication dated 27.10.1977 to the second defendant setting out all the details and praying for the withdrawal of the unjustified demand made on him. The Deputy Manager (Accounts) at Mayavaram Civil Supplies Corporation is also understood to have conveyed his views to the third defendant for re-consideration of the demand made on the plaintiff. The plaintiff addressed an appeal to the second defendant on 24.12.1977 and by communication dated 17.1.1978 requested for reconsideration of the matter. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the second defendant by communication dated 25.1.1978.;