INGUVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. SAMUDRALA VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who is the appellant in this Second Appeal, was a licensed stamp-vendor to sell Court-fee general stamps in the District Munsif's Court, Nuzbid. The defendant was a clerk appointed by him, according to the allegations in the plaint, on a monthly salary of Rs. 25.00for the purpose of depositing money in the Sub-treasury and taking delivery of the indented stamps and selling the stamps at the Court and maintaining a true and proper account of the above transactions. The further allegations in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff was furnishing the defendant with the necessary funds for the purchase of stamps. The defendant was not paying the plaintiff all the sale proceeds of stamps. So, in April 1955, after the Court was closed for summer vacation, the plaintiff demanded the dfefendant to render a true and proper account of all the transactions and pay to the plaintiff the amount which was lying with the defendant representing the sale proceeds of the stamps and also to deliver the unsold stamps. But the defendant did not do so. But he sent the account books alleged to have been maintained by him to the plaintiff with one K. Venkata Rao examined as P. W. 2 in the case. The defendant did not pay any amount or give the unsold stamps to the plaintiff. From a perusal of the accounts, it is clear that the plaintiff noted some false entries in the accounts. The plaint gives certain instances of false entries. It is also alleged that the defendant is under a duty to maintain and render a true and proper account of all the transactions of stamp-vending. The defendant was employed as a clerk till April, 1955. A decree was prayed for directing the defendant to render a true and proper account of the transactions of stamp vending conducted on behalf of the plaintiff by the defendant during the period of his employment and (or passing of a decree in plaintiff's favour for the amount found due by the defendant.

(2.) The defendant pleaded that he was employed as a clerk on a

(3.) It is argued by Mr. Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is nothing either in the Court-fees Act or in the Indian Stamp Act which prohibits the appointment of a clerk by a licensed stamp-vendor to attend to the sale transactions relating to the stamps and that, therefore, the view pf the learned Additional District Judge that the suit claim is opposed to law and not enforceable is erroneous.