Dave, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated 9th November, 1953 upholding the judgment and decree of Munsiff, West Jaipur dated 1st August, 1953.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 2 Rameshwar was storekeeper of defendant No. 1 and that he used to purchase articles from the plaintiffs on credit, on behalf of defendant No. 1. It was further averred that Rameshwar purchased articles valued at Rs. 1,187/2/4 from the plaintiffs on behalf of the company. Out of the said amount, Rs. 610/3/- remained outstanding. THE plaintiff thus claimed Rs. 610/3/-for principal and Rs. 65/8/- for interest up to the date of the suit. Defendant No. 1 admitted that defendant No. 2 was in their employment as a storekeeper. It was also admitted that they had received articles valued at Rs. 1,187/2/-but it was stated that the company used to advance money to defendant No. 2 for purchasing articles on cash and that he had no authority to purchase any article on credit. According to defendant No. 1, the company had paid to defendant No. 2 for all the articles, they had received and, therefore, it was not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 Rameshwar also admitted that he had purchased articles worth Rs. 1,117/2/- from the plaintiffs and that he has received the entire money from the company defendant No. 1. His plea was that he had repaid the entire amount to the plaintiffs, that there was a separate transaction loan of Rs. 314/2/- between him and the plaintiffs, that he had executed a Khata of Rs. 326/10/- in the plaintiffs' favour and even that amount was later on paid up. On these pleadings, the trial court framed five issues and after recording evidence of both the parties, it came to the conclusion that defendant No. 2 had failed to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiffs and therefore, a decree for Rs. 676/2/- including defendant No. 1 on the ground that the company had not either by its words or conduct induced the plaintiffs to sell anything to Rameshwer on credit and, therefore, the provision of sec. 237 of the India Contract Act on which reliance was placed by the plaintiffs, were not attracted. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiffs went in appeal which was heard by learned Senior Civil Judge Jaipur City, but they were unsuccessful and hence they have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that both the courts below had considered only sec. 237 of the Indian Contract Act, but their attention was not invited to sec. 70 of the same Act, that according to the provisions of sec. 70, the defendant No. 1 was also liable to pay Rs. 676/2/- to the plaintiffs, because the company had received all the articles and, therefore, it was bound either to make compensation to the plaintiffs or restore the articles received by it. Learned counsel has also referred to Secy, of State vs. G. T. Sarin & Co. (1) in support of his argument. I have given due consideration to the argument raised by learned counsel and in my opinion, sec. 70 of the India Contract Act does not help the appellants. Sec. 70 runs as follows - "where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or restore, the thing so done or delivered. " It is obvious that section deals with what is popularly known as "quasi-contracts". But it is not applicable to the present case, because the defendant No. 1 never asked the plaintiffs to do anything for them or to deliver any property to them. Defendant No. 1 had, according to the concurrent findings of both the courts below, advanced money in cash to its employee, defendant No. 2 for purchasing articles from the open market on cash payment. There is further finding of both the courts below that Rameshwar was not given the authority to purchase anything on credit. Rameshwar himself has admitted that he had received all the amount from the company and that he was not permitted to purchase anything on credit. There was therefore, no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the company, defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs were dealing with defendant No. 2 as an ordinary purchaser. The plaintiff cannot hold defendant No. 1 responsible for the payment simply because the articles had reached the store of the company and that storekeeper who received cash amount from the company had not in his turn paid it to the Plaintiffs. There could be some force in the argument of learned counsel, if the company had not paid the value of the articles to defendant No. 2, but since it is proved beyond any doubt as held by both the courts below that defendant No. 1 has made the entire payment to defendant No. 2, the provisions of sec. 70 of the Indian Contract Act do not come into play. As regards the authority, Secy, of State vs. G. T. Sarin & Co. (1) cited by learned counsel for appellants it would suffice to say that it is easily distinguishable on facts. In that case, the plaintiff company had supplied grain for purposes of feeding horses to Regiment known as Probyn's Horse. The value of the commodity supplied by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 6,702/14/5 was not paid to the plaintiffs. Later on, it transpired that the agreement, which was entered into between the plaintiff company and officer commanding of the depot, was invalid and on that account, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that they were not liable to the plaintiffs. This argument was repelled and it was held that the defendants were equitably bound to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the quantity of grain delivered to them and consumed by their horses, because of the provisions of sec. 70 of Indian Contract Act. It is obvious that in the above case, the defendants had not only received the grain supplied by the plaintiffs, but it was also found that its value was not paid to the extent of the amount referred to above. It was in those circumstances that the defendants were held liable to pay that amount to the plaintiffs by virtue of the provisions of sec. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, In the present case, it has been found by both the courts below that defendant No. 1 has already made full payment to defendant No. 2 who had purchased the articles from the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 cannot be called upon to make a double payment to the plaintiffs simply because defendant No. 2 in his turn did not pay a certain sum to the plaintiffs. There is thus no force in this appeal, and, therefore, it is dismissed. No order as to costs, because Shri Kashliwal has not appeared on behalf of the respondents and Shri Garg has not filed any certificate. . ;