HAJEE ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. SRI SARGURU SARVA SAMARASA SANGAM BY ITS PRESIDENT RAMASWAMI ADIGAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, dismissing a portion of the claim made by the plaintiff in S.C. 451 of 1963. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1773 being the lorry hire charges due from the defendants. The first defendant in the suit Sri Sarguru Sarva Samarasa Sangam, represented by its President Ramaswami Adigal, was a registered Sangam at Coonoor of which the second respondent was its President. The third defendant was the Sixth All Tribal Welfare Board represented by its Secretaries. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant requested the plaintiff who is a lorry owner to transport hill tribes from various parts of the hills to Ootacamund between 20th May to 23rd May 1960 when All India Tribal Welfare Board had its conference, at Ootacamund. The plaintiff plied four lorries and transported hill tribes to the conference at Ootacamund and on that account he made a claim for Rs. 1173 -06 as arrears due to him. The second defendant has personally undertaken to pay the arrears and therefore he was personally liable for the amount claimed by him.

(2.) The first defendant, Sri Sarguru Sarva Samarasa Sangam resisted the claim stating that it had nothing to do with the Tribal Conference and that there was no contract between the first defendant and the plaintiff. The second defendant contended in the suit that he was the life President of the first defendant Sangam and that he was not personally liable for any claim made by the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff had any relief, he should proceed against the third defendant, namely, the All India Tribunal Welfare Board. The second defendant alto disputed the quantum of arrears and refuted some of the items claimed by the plaintiff. The third defendant, represented by one of the Secretaries filed a written statement stating that the Board had nothing to do with the alleged transactions and that he was an unnecessary party to the suit.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit against the first defendant, but he held that the second defendant was personally liable for the claim made by the plaintiff and that the third defendant was also liable for the claim. Regarding the quantum of the claim made by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge disallowed a portion of the claim and decreed the suit against defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 494 -94 with proportionate costs. Three items of amounts were disputed by the defendants, namely -(1) The hire charges due for the lorry MDN 3531, (2) a sum of Rs. 140 which was claimed by the plaintiff as waiting charges for two lorries for two days and (3) a sum of Rs. 81 -06. The learned Subordinate Judge, so far as Item No. 2 is concerned, held that there was no contract between the parties that waiting charges should be paid and in the absence of such a contract the claim for Rs.140 on that account cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to how the plaintiff was entitled to this sum in the absence of an agreement. This portion of the claim has been rightly disallowed. Even with regard to Item No. 3 Rs. 81 -06, I am of the opinion that this has also been rightly disallowed. In the ledger filed by the plaintiff marked as Ex. P. 2, this item of the claim has not been entered and the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved the claim for this amount. I therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of disallowing the claim of Rs. 140 and Rs. 81 -06 covered by Itemed and 3.