Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiffs-respondents deal in grain and cloth. They used to purchase rice from the defendants-appellants firm. They alleged that there were transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants firm, as a result of which the plaintiffs said that Rs. 880/ 18/6 was the balance due to them and filed a suit for the recovery of the same,
(2.) The defendants contested the suit and according to them nothing was due to the plaintiff. On one occasion certain quantity of rice was sent by the defendants to the plaintiffs and a bill was made out. When the plaintiffs received the rice, they found that it was of an inferior quality than was ordered for. They brought this to the notice of the defendants firm. One Sarju Prasad, a partner of the defendants firm, was the person dealing with these matters. He was satisfied that the rice was of inferior quality and therefore he reduced the amount of the bill by a sum of Rs. 628/8/-. The defendants challenged this reduction by Sarju Prasad and said that they were not bound by the act of Sarju Prasad. The defendants' reliance was upon Section 19 (2) (c), Partnership Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 oi the Act lays down: "Subject to the provisions of Section 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm. The authority of a partner to bind the firm con-ferred by this section is called his "implied authority". Then Sub-section (2) lays down: "In the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner does not earpower him to-- (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) Compromise or relinquish any claim on portion of a claim by a firm". According to the defendants-appellants this reduction by Sarju Prasad, one of their partners, in the amount of the bill was a compromise or a relinquishment of a claim or a portion of a claim by the firm, which Sarju Prasad had no authority to do.
(3.) The court below held that this was not a case of compromise or relinquishment of a claim or a portion of a claim, but that it was a case of correction of a bona fide mistake in the bill or Bijak submitted to the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants.;