STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHAVDAS JANKIDSJI MOHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra, original defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-3-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/82 has filed this ap-peal on the contentions that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below directing the appellant defendant to pay Rs. 13996. 25 with future interest @ 12% per annum from 25-10-1973 till realisation, are not sustainable in law.

(2.) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under: the respondent No. 1 plaintiff is an agriculturist and in the year 1972-73 he had sold cotton of MCU-5 variety. On 9-2-1973 he had tendered cotton of the aforesaid variety weighing about 10. 22 quintals worth Rs. 12,870. 40 to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for sale. The cotton was graded in 'b' quality and the declared rate of the cotton at that time was Rs. 320/- per quintal. The weight of the cotton was taken and after the defendant No. 2 took the posses-sion of the same. The plaintiff was entitled to 80% of the price of the cotton, but the payment was withheld by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as the news item was published in the newspaper 'zanzawat dated 19-3-1973. The plain-tiff submitted his written application demanding the outstanding amount of rs. 12870. 40 together with interest of Rs. 1093. 95 at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from 9-2-1973 to 22-10-73. But, though the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the same, did not pay and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the claim by filing their written statement and it has been contended that the plaintiff did not tender cotton for sale as claimed and the receipt dated 9-2-1973 was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. The weight of the cotton was not taken nor the grading was done as is 're-quired by law. The receipt was tendered by the plaintiff for payment but the payment could not be made as the receipt was invalid. The defendant No. 2 contended that the notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act was not served and therefore, the suit is not tenable. It is con-tended that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are small purchasing agents having limited authority to purchase the cotton at the prescribed rate and to handover it to the defendant No. 2 and it was to get only commission for sale. The defendant No. 2 being only an agent, not liable to pay anything to plaintiff.