LAWS(ALL)-1957-8-31

RAJA RAM JAISWAL Vs. GANESH PRASAD

Decided On August 19, 1957
RAJA RAM JAISWAL Appellant
V/S
GANESH PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The Jawahar Palace Cinema including its building, furniture and machine belonged to defendant No. 1, a limited Company known as Allahabad Theatres Ltd. The appellant Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal, Sri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal and Sri Nand Kishore Chaudhari were the directors of the Allahabad Theatres Ltd, The plaintiff is a broker. According to him, the abovomention-cd three directors of the Allahabad Theatres Ltd. deputed him to find a purchaser for the property and Sri Raja Ram Taiswal wrote a letter to him on 22-12-1941 in which he said that

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds the main defence being that the three directors had no authority on behalf of the Company to sell the property, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission as the sale had never been effected.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went up in appeal and the first appellate court decreed the suit against Raja Ram Jaiswal only. It took the view that Raja Ram Jaiswal having written the letter dated 22.12-1941 had undertaken personal liability for the payment of the commission. The plaintiff had done everything that he could do in the circumstances and if the sale could not be effected it was no fault of his. The suit was dismissed as against the other defendants. Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal then filed a second appeal in this Court and the appeal was heard by V. Bhargava, J. Before him it was argued that as the sale did not finally take place, on the terms of the agreement between the parties the plaintiff could not claim any commission. It was also urged that Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal could not be made personally liable for the plaintiffs' commission as he had all along been acting for and on behalf of the Company. Both these contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge and the appeal of Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal was dismissed. Permission to file an appeal to a Division Bench was, however, granted and the present appeal has been filed as a result.