D E KASISAH Vs. N T ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000 as damages against the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff was originally running a cinema business as an exhibitor of talkie pictures under the name and style of "kannan Talkies" at No. 62/1 Lake View road, Old Mambalam, Madras. He took the premises on lease for a period of 7 years on a monthly rental or Rs. 450, after paying an advance of Rs. 7000 to the landlord. He also equipped the picture house with furniture and machinery purchased at a cost of Rs. 40,000. It was in the course of purchasing new equipment that he contacted the first defendant, first respondent herein, who is the manager of the International Talkie Equipment Co. , Ltd. , the second defendant, who is dealing in talkie equipment. As the plaintiff had not sufficient funds to purchase the equipment, it was arranged that he should purchase the equipment required from the said international Talkie Equipment Co. , by entering into a hire purchase agreement with the Commercial Credit Corporation. The plaintiff did not fare well in the business and he was also in arrears to the land lord in respect of the rent payable for the premises. He was also committing default in the payment of the instalment to the Commercial Credit Corporation. He alleges that the first defendant took advantage of his financial embarrassment and acting for himself and on behalf of the 2nd defendant suggested to him to hand over the entire cinema business with all the equipment to him, undertaking to improve the business and pay the amounts-due to the Commercial Credit corporation from and out of the income of the business and further undertaking to pay also the arrears of rent payable to the landlord. The plaintiff accordingly entrusted the business as a running cinema concern to the care and management of the first defendant. Contrary to the assurances given by the first defendant he defaulted in paying the instalments due to the Commercial Credit Corporation and allowed the said Corporation to seize the machinery on the pretext that the plaintiff was in arrears and then sold the same to the 2nd defendant-company and the 2nd defendant ultimately sold the machinery to a third party for book value. The plaintiff alleges that on account of this conduct of the defendants his business was ruined and he lost the talkie equipment and incurred heavy loss thereby. He estimated the loss at Rs. 50,000. It is to recover this amount the plaintiff filed the present suit in forma paupers against the defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) THE first defendant denied all the allegations made against him and stated that he was only a sales manager of the 2nd defendant company and when the plaintiff purchased the equipment, he (first defendant) in his capacity as engineer of the company erected the same in the plaintiff's picture house. He however admits that the plaintiff was badly in need of talkie equipment and that he recommended to the plaintiff to purchase the equipment from the 2nd defendant company by entering into a hire-purchase agreement with the Commercial Credit Corporation. But he denied that the plaintiff entrusted the business to him, and stated that he had nothing to do with the business of the company.