BACHU SURYANARAYANAMURTY Vs. KAKARLAPUDI VENKATA VEERABHADRA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the sole defendant who died subsequent to the filing of the appeal. His legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants Nos. a to 9. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, in O.S. No. 22 of 1970 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent) for a sum of Rs. 18,305-75 P. with proportionate costs and with future interest at 5 1/2% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

(2.) The point raised in this appeal is within a narrow compass and it is therefore unnecessary to traverse the entire pleadings and facts of the case. The relevant facts which were admitted or proved and which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows :- The plaintiff owns agricultural lands in the villages of Samanthakurru, Devaguptam and Kommaragiripatnam. The defendant was the owner of Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Mill at Amalapuram. and also a dealer in paddy and rice. The plaintiff sold certain quantities of paddy on 13th June, 1969, and 18th July, 1969 to the defendant. The value of the paddy sold came to Rs. 8,505-70 P. and this was acknowledged by the defendant by his letter Exhibit A-6, dated loth August, 1969. Deducting a sum of Rs. 2,000 paid by the defendant on 8th December, 1969, he became liable to pay the balance of Rs. 6,505-75 P. Again on 8th September, 1968, the plaintiff sold some more paddy to the defendant and the same was acknowledged by the defendant by his letter Exhibit A-g, dated" 8th September, 1969. Towards that paddy, the defendant became liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 12,200. The plaintiff further alleged that he sold on 21st September, 1969 another quantity of paddy to the defendant but this was not evidenced by any letter and is disputed by the defendant. Towards the value of this paddy the plaintiff claimed Rs. 2,530. The aggregate of the amounts for which the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff came to Rs. 21,235-75 P. and the suit was filed for the recovery of the said amount.

(3.) Various defences were raised by the defendant stating that the plaintiff had no capacity to supply or sell the paddy, that he was only a commission agent, that the plaintiff was not an authorised dealer in paddy and he had no licence under the Andhra Pradesh Food- grains Dealers Licensing Order and that therefore the agreement to sell paddy by the plaintiff to the defendant was not valid in law. The defendant contended that his rice mill did not deal in the business of purchase of paddy and it had no licence, that he was only a partner of the said rice mill, that he had no licence to deal in the business of paddy and he was not competent to sell or purchase paddy, and that any agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale and purchase of paddy was void. A contention was also raised that the prices at which the paddy was sold were over and above the prices fixed under various Control orders and on that account also, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the suit amount, and that the contracts or agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of paddy were hit by the provisions of sections 23 of the Contract Act and were void and unenforceable .