K. MUNEYYA AND CO. REPRESENTED BY THE PARTNER A.R. SUBRAMANYAM IYYAR Vs. K. VARADARAJULU
LAWS(APH)-1955-7-34
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 30,1955

K. Muneyya And Co. Represented By The Partner A.R. Subramanyam Iyyar Appellant
VERSUS
K. Varadarajulu Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BABASA V. HOMBANNA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KUMARAYYA,J. - (1.)This is plaintiffs' appeal. Their suit for recovery of Rs. 13,494-10-3 against the defendant has been dismissed with costs by the Principal Subordinate Judge Eluru. Their claim consists of two amounts and interest thereon. One represents the amount paid by plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant for the purchase of 301 bags for him. The other is cash advance by plaintiffs to Armugatn at his request on behalf of the defendant.
(2.)The facts of the case raise for determination only two questions; one, a question of fact and the other, a question of law. The question of fact is, whether the plaintiffs, in the transaction of supply of 301 bags of boiled rice to the defendant, held the capacity of sellers or mere agenta on commission basis, and further, whether the plaintiffs did advance a sum of Rs. 600 /- to V. Armugam, as the agent of the defendant. The second question which is of law, is, whether the plaintiffs have lost their right to the purchase money paid by them by reason of loss of goods in the looting after they were booked in the railway waggon.
(3.)In order to appreciate the points raised, a brief statement of facts is expedient. Plaintiffs are a registered firm of merchants and commission agents at Eluru. The defendant is a trader doing business at Madras. The case of the plaintiffs is that Armugam, as the representative of the defendant, gave them, in pursuance of telephone directions received by him from the defendant, instructions for the purchase of 301 bags of boiled rice and the plaintiffs accordingly purchased the same for and on behalf of the defendant on 13-12-1952 at Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill at Tadepalligudem. The purchased goods were loaded the same forenoon in waggon No. B.N. 32485 at Tadepalligudem railway station. On both the occasions i.e., of purchase as well as booking, Armugam, on behalf of the defendant, was with the plaintiff's man. The invoice thereafter was prepared in his presence. He duly made his signature thereon. In fact, the same evening, he communicated about these to the defendant, who approved of the same. Armugam required a sum of Rs. 600/- which at his request on behalf of the defendant, was advanced to him under his signature in the account book. Then under the instructions of Armugam as also in pursuance of the usual practice a hundi for the amount paid to the seller and also for the money advanced to Armugam was drawn on 15-12-1952 on the Central Bank, Eluru and was sent along with the R. R. to the said Bank. The defendant refused to honour the hundi and receive the R. R. as he came to know of the loot and loss of goods. The plaintiffs then instructed the bank to give free delivery of the R. R. duly endorsed to the defendant. The defendant refused to take delivery of the same. The plaintiffs then sent the R. R. to the defendant himself and demanded payment of the amount in the invoice dated 13-12-1952. The defendant refused payment and returned the R.R. The plaintiffs then brought the present claim.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.