SHANTI LAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Seth Shanti Lal, the plaintiff, whose suit No. 42 of 1940 instituted against four persons, namely, Madan Lal, Phondi Lal, Nathi Mal, and Lallu Mal had been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge of Agra on 28-1-1944. The suit was instituted on 22-10-1940. Shanti Lal alleged that the defendants formed a joint Hindu family and dealt in ready grain and also entered into forward contracts for the sale and purchase of grain and other commodities; that the defendants opened three different "khatas' with the plaintiff, the one in the name of "madan lal Lallu Mal", the other in the name of "lallu Mal Dalai", and the third in the name of "brij kishore" and they did business in the commission agency of the plaintiff who acted as their 'pakka arhatia'; that the defendants entered into transactions in 'arhar, bajra', cotton seed, etc. in the commission agency of the plaintiff; that on account of these transactions ranging between 18-12-1939 and 14-3-1940, there was a debit balance of Rs. 5661/9/9 due to the plaintiff by the defendants under the khata of Madan Lal Lallu Mal; that in the 'khata' of Lallu Mal Dalai a sum of Rs. 125/14/6 was due to the plaintiff from the defendants, and in the 'khata' of Brij Kishore there was a credit balance of Rs. 140/4/- due to the defendants from the plaintiff, and that upon an adjustment of these amounts a sum of Rs. 5647/4/3 as principal and Rs. 352/11/9 as interest, total Rs. 6,000/-, was due from the defendants to the plaintiff which they had not paid in spite of repeated demands. The claim was, therefore, for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -.

(2.) PHONDI Lal and Nathi Mall, defendants 2 and 3, pleaded that they had nothing to do with these transactions and they never did any business with the plaintiff. They contended that they were separate from Madan Lal and Lallu Mal, defendants 1 and 4, and they never gave them any authority to do any business on their behalf.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Madan Lal and Lallu Mal contended that the plaintiff was not their 'pakka arhatia', but he was only their commission agent; that these defendants had dealings with the plaintiff under 'khatas' styled as "madan Lal Lallu Mal", "lallu Mal Dalai", and "brij Kishore", that the 'khata' styled as "brij Kishore" related- to transactions of ready goods and the other two 'khatas' related to forward contracts which were wagering in nature and could not, therefore, be enforced; that since the plaintiff had not rendered accounts as commission agent and since he exceeded the authority given to him as a commission agent, he was not entitled to any relief.