KRISHNAMMA NAIDU Vs. KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. He was doing forward contract business in oil at Cochin through the agency of the plaintiff. The transactions ended in a loss. For the amount found to be due to the plaintiff on a final settlement of all accounts between himself and the plaintiff, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff. The defendant denied his liability and put the plaintiff to the proof of his claim. Accordingly, evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. The Trial Court accepted such evidence and decreed the plaint claim. The appeal is against that decree.

(2.) Plaintiff is a dealer in oil at Mattanchery, Such dealings at Mattanchery could be conducted only by the members of the Oil Merchants Association, Cochin, at Mattanchery. Plaintiff is a member of this Association while the defendant is not. The defendant thereupon engaged the services of the plaintiff to conduct the trade in oil on his behalf. It follows therefore that every transaction entered into by the plaintiff was binding on the defendant as the principal. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had been authorised as defendants agent to carry on the purchase and sale of oil. A lump sum had also been entrusted to the plaintiff. All the same, the defendant chose to deny his liability to the plaintiff. In the present appeal two points were urged on behalf of the defendant. The first is that the plaint claim arises out of a wagering contract and hence it is not enforceable in a court of law. The second point is that the defendant had no opportunity to adduce evidence about the prevailing market rates in respect of each of the several transactions. The second point has to be ruled out at the outset. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant had taken any steps to adduce evidence at any stage. In fact he did not even care to go into the witness-box. Thus he cannot claim that he was not given opportunity to adduce evidence.

(3.) Coming to the first point, that the transaction between these parties was in the nature of a wagering contract, it has to be pointed out that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was one between principal and agent and that the plaint claim is for re-imbursement of the amount spent by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. The criticism that the dealing in oil was in the nature of a wagering contract, can, if at all, apply to the dealings which the plaintiff had on behalf of the defendant. The present claim is not for enforcement of any claim under such a contract. Plaintiffs claim being one for re-imbursement of the loss incurred by him on behalf of the defendant, there is no legal bar to the entertainment of such a claim. Vide AIR 1954 S. C. 500.