V ABDUL KHALEEL AND CO Vs. RAMAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 13,183.25 with subsequent interest on Rs. 12,683.25 at 9% per annum as per trade practice and custom. It was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) THE case as set out in the suit O.S. No. 789/82 before the District Munsif Court, Polur, the then North Arcot District, was as follows: THE plaintiff was a registered partnership represented by its Managing Partner one Abdul Malik Sahib. On 26.4.1980 the plaintiff supplied 93 bags of 76 kgs. per bag of ADT-31 paddy at Rs. 89.75 per bag and Co-Champa 47 bags at Rs. 90.50 per bag under credit bill No. 538 for Rs. 12,683.25 sent by lorry No. MDS9705 to the defendant. Though the defendant agreed to pay the amount soon thereafter, he did not pay. THE plaintiff/appellant caused a notice to be issued under the original of Ex. A-1 on 7.7.1980, which provoked a reply under Ex. A-2 dated 16.7.1980 saying that the amount had been paid to one Lakshmana Rao. Even if the amount had been paid to Lakshmana Rao, it would not bind the plaintiff and the defendant was liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and Lakshmana Rao and any payment alleged to have been made by the defendant to the said Lakshmana Rao would not bind the plaintiff and the defendant was liable to meet the suit claim. THE learned Counsel further submitted that it was not the case of the defendant that Lakshmana Rao acted as the agent ot he plaintiff. On the other hand, the admitted case was that Lakshmana Rao acted on behaii of the defendant and placed orders for 140 bags of paddy and the plaintiff delivered the bags with the necessary invoices directly to the defendant, and when once this fact was admitted and proved, the defendant was liable for the suit claim. It is also not pleaded in the written statement that Lakshmana Rao was the agent of the plaintiff. In as much as Lakshmana Rao acted as agent to the defendant, any contract entered into by him with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant would bind the defendant. THE learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Thirumulu Subbu Chetti v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1930 ILR 53 Mad. 270 = AIR 1930 Mad. 381 = 58 MU 420 = 31 L.W. 371 = 124 I.C. 55) to the effect that a stranger to a contract cannot sue to enforce it.