MUKUNDCHAND BALIA Vs. SOBHAGMAL GIANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case carried on business in Bombay as a shroff and merchant and Kaccha and Pakka Adatia at the material time. The defendant resided and carried on business at Itchhavar within the territory of the Bhopal State under the name and style of Bagmal Gianmal and Sobhagmal Thanmal. As an up-country constituent the defendant did business in Broach and Bengal cotton through the plaintiff in Bombay. He employed the plaintiff as his Kaccha Adatia to do business for him in forward transactions in cotton. The transactions commenced in Samvat 1971, but we are not concerned with the transactions of the Samvat years 1971, 1972 and 1973 directly. In Samvat 1974, there were various forward transactions and Teji Mandi transactions carried out by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and there was a certain sum due by the firm of Sobhagmal Thanmal to the plaintiff, which also was included in the agency account for the Samvat year 1974.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the present suit in March 1921 to recover Rs. 1,83,632-5-6, inclusive of interest up to the date of the suit, on the agency account between him and the defendant for the Samvat year 1974.

(3.) The defendant pleaded that the sum due by the firm of Sobhag-mal Thanmal was not rightly included in this agency account, and that the plaintiff's claim in respect of that sum was barred by limitation. Further it was pleaded that the amount of the profit made in respect of jute, the plaintiff should give credit to the defendant in this account. The principal defence was that all those forward transactions and Teji Mandi transactions were wagering transactions. This defence was put in the written statement in this form:-- The defendant admits that the plaintiff acted in Bombay as the Kacoha Adatia of the said two firms in various transactions. The defendant says that the transactions in Broach and Bengal cotton and the Teji Mandi transactions in Broach cotton were all wagering and gambling. The defendant says that it was agreed and understood between the parties that as regards transactions in Broach and Bengal cotton only differences were to be paid and received and that the plaintiff should not upon the defendant's orders enter into any transactions therein with any person or firm who were likely to insist upon delivery being given or taken.