AHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT SECONDARY TEACHERS CO Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY, AHMEDNAGAR EDUCATION SOCIETY, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is a registered Co-operative Society, running shops in controlled and uncontrolled articles. Defendant No. 1 is also a registered society known as "Ahmednagar Education Society, Nagar" and defendant No. 2 is the Principal of the college of the said institution. Defendant No. 2 runs a hostel and boarding for the college. The Principal of the college supervises the functions and the activities of the said hostel and the boarding house attached to the college. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the students of the hostel and the boarding are running their mess and they had to purchase necessary provisions for the boarding students on credit. The plaintiff alleges that there had been dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to purchase of the goods and articles and other provi-sions. The plaintiff has supplied those goods at the instance of the Principal defendant No. 2 and from July 1961 to April 9, 1966 in all Rs. 20,299.09 were debited in the Khata of defendant No. 2 towards the price of the goods purchased by defendant No. 2 and in all Rs. 14,054.63 were paid from time to time and Rs. 6,244.46 remained to be paid by the defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in spite of repeated demands for the payment of the said amount the defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. A notice was issued by the plaintiff, through his advocate, dated June 29, 1967, which is at Exh. 78 asking the defendant No. 2 to pay the balance of the amount. The said notice was not replied and the payment was not made. Therefore the plaintiff filed a suit on March 18, 1968 against both the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,691.46 inclusive of interest on the principal amount.

(2.) The defendants resisted the said suit and contended that the suit is barred by time. It is further contended that the suit is not brought against the society and hence the said suit is not tenable. It is further alleged that the suit is not filed against the proper office bearers of defendant No. 1 which is a public trust and hence the suit is not competent. Lastly it is urged in the written statement that defendant No. 2 is not a registered institution and it is not a legal person, hence the suit is incompetent. Lastly a plea was taken by the defendants that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and hence the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) On these pleadings of the parties, the learned civil Judge framed necessary issues, allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and on appreciation of the evidence, recorded the findings. In support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff produced a document which is at Exh. 94 is admittedly a letter written by the Principal of the Institution dated Oct. 6, 1958 asking the plaintiff to supply the goods to the Boarding on credit. The Principal also had taken responsibility of paying the bills every month. The legal implication of this letter will be discussed later on in this judgment. The learned Judge of the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit by the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1970 holding that the plaintiff although has proved the suit items, and amounts thereof, however, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the said items were purchased by the defendants, through their Principal, for the boarding run by them. It is further held that the students run the boarding on a club system, and thus there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 133 of 1968, preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 287 of 1970 to the District Judge, Ahmednagar. The said appeal was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar and by the judgment and decree dated July 14, 1972 the appeal of the plaintiff came to be dismissed confirming more or less the findings recorded by the trial Court. Against that judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the legality and correctness of the decree, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.