MANAGER ANDHRA BANK Vs. INTERNATIONAL EXPORT ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the pardes. These two appeals have been filed by 1st defendant and 3rd defendant in O.S.No.91 of 1989 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The plaintiff who is respondent No.1 in these appeals filed a suit before the trial Court seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,92,610/- being the loss of interest, rental charges for the godown and loss of business. He also sought mandatory injunction against 2nd defendant to issue transport permit and certificate of origin to enable the plaintiff to remove the stocks from the godown of 3rd defendant and permanent injunction against defendants 3 and 4 from interfering with the stocks stored in the godown of 3rd defendant. The suit was contested by the defendants and on the basis of pleadings many issues were drawn for trial. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that only one question which has been raised and can be considered in these appeals is whether there was any contract between the plaintiff and 1st defendant by which the 1st defendant had taken it upon himself to get the requisite permits from the Forest authorities to enable the plaintiff to lift, transport and sell the timber which was stored in the godown. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are given briefly.

(2.) That the 4th defendant owed money to 1st defendant-Bank. Some sandalwood and red sandalwood stood pledged with the bank on behalf of 4th defendant. The plaintiff purchased the timber from 4th defendant and cleared the debt of the 4th defendant with 1st defendant. The 1st defendant received the money from the plaintiff on behalf of 4th defendant. Till the receipt of this money the godown in which the timber had been stored was under the lock and key of 1st defendant. After the money was received by the bank the keys and lock were handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not lift the timber in the absence of requisite permits for its transport and sale from Forest authorities under the Forest Act. The case of the plaintiff was that when he deposited the amount which was outstanding in the name of 4th defendant with 1st defendant, the 1st defendant-bank had promised and assured him that they will obtain necessary permits from the Forest authorities in favour of the plaintiff to lift, transport and sell the timber. It is an admitted fact that there is no written agreement whatsoever between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Only a notice and a letter were pressed into service by the plaintiff being Exs.A-3 and A-6 which were written by 1st defendant-Bank to the plaintiff and the Forest authorities respectively. The learned Judge of the trial Court laboured very hard in order to justify his passing of a decree in favour of the plaintiff for reasons best known to him. This document Ex.A-6 merely informed the Forest authorities that the plaintiff has no liability towards the bank with further request that permit may be granted to him. By Ex.A-3 notice the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff to seek a permit from Forest Authorities for transporting the timber. The learned Judge even failed to appreciate that even if there would have been an agreement between the bank and the plaintiff that bank would ensure necessary permits in terms of the Forest Act from the Forest authorities, even then it would not bind the 1st defendant-Bank because the permit to store, lift, cut, transport and sell the timber has to be granted in terms of the Forest Act. This is a statutory function of statutory authorities under a statute. Even if somebody Undertakes to seek a permit to store, lift, cut, transport and sell the timber, that agreement would be, not only against the public policy, but also against the Forest Act itself. Even if there would have been such an agreement, that would have been a void agreement. No party or authority can assume a duty to himself which under a statute somebody else has to perform and if such a duty is agreed to be performed by a non-statutory authority and there is an agreement to that effect, the agreement itself would be void. However, we have not found from evidence that there was any agreement between the parties. We are sorry to note that the learned Judge has given such reasons which cannot be accepted at any cost. At one point, he stated that even if there was not an agreement between the parties, even then there was negligence, but again stated that there was negligence because there was an agreement. We have failed to understand what did the learned Judge wanted to convey, when he stated,

(3.) For the reasons given hereinabove, we do not find that any issue needs to be addressed by us. The decree passed by the trial Court against the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 91 of 1989 is set aside. There is a decree against the 2nd defendant-Forest authority, but they have not filed any appeal, therefore we are not disturbing that finding, but we want to add that any permit to be granted by the Forest authority would have to be granted in accordance with the Forest Act. With these modifications a decree be drawn accordingly. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.