KANIGOLLA MUNEYYA Vs. POTTI VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-appellants sued the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,588-1-0 being the balance due of Khata dealings between them inclusive of a fine of Rs. 600 and Rs. 523-3-0 towards legal expenses, rents and interest incurred by the plaintiffs in defending criminal proceedings against them. The first defendant is a firm carrying on business at Bezwada in pulses and millets, etc., being represented by the Managing Partner, Rao Sahib Potti Swamy, who died after the suit was filed when defendant No. 6 was added as his legal representative in I.A. No. 1239 of 1947, dated I4th August, 1948. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants had dealings with them and were purchasing from time to time cholum, ragi and pulses from them, that on 28th May, 1943, the defendants purchased 128 bags of cholum, on 7th June, 1943, 52 bags of cholum and on 9th July, 1943, 55 bags of ragi, that for all these they paid part of the price, that at the time of these purchases the defendants' agent, Chekka Bapanayya, it is alleged, represented to the plaintiffs that the defendants-firm had a licence to purchase millets and acting on that representation the plaintiffs sold the cholum and ragi. It is further alleged that the said Bapanayya left the goods with the plaintiffs representing to them that he would obtain a permit from the District Collector, West Godavary, to move them to Bezwada but in the meanwhile the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, West Godavary, examined the accounts of the plaintiffs' firm and discovered that they had sold millets to the -defendants who had no licence to deal in them and therefore he filed a complaint aginst the plaintiffs in C. C. No. 2 of 1944. The plaintiffs were convicted by the Deputy First Class Magistrate, Eluru, and sentenced each to a fine of Rs. 150 which amounted to Rs. 600 as there were four partners in the plaintiffs' firm. The plaintiffs filed an appeal being C. A. No. 69 of 1944, in the Sessions Court of West Godavary, but that was dismissed and so was also a Criminal Revision Petition No. 914 of 1944 filed in the High Court. In conducting the defence and appeals the plaintiffs alleged that they had incurred expenses including fees to the counsel amounting to Rs. 553-2-0 which the plaintiffs claimed the defendants were bound to make good. They further claimed that since the goods were left in their custody by the Commercial Tax Officer from the date of their seizure to 6th July, 1945, when they were delivered to the defendant, they were entitled to Rs. 395-4-0 at the rate of Re. 0-1-0 per bag per month and also claimed interest at 9 per cent, per annum on the balance of the price and other expenses incurred by them. The defendants did not deny the purchase of cholum and ragi on the dates mentioned by the plaintiff, but they denied that they or their clerk, Bapanayya, made any representation to the plaintiffs as alleged and they further denied the correctness of the account. They filed a copy of their own account which showed that they overpaid the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 2-5-6. They further denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive any godown rent and at any rate the usual rent charges by all Commission Agents in Eluru was Re. 0-4-0 per 10 bags per month, that they were not liable to pay the plaintiffs any damages towards fine paid or other expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in defending criminal proceedings, nor are the plaintiffs entitled to any interest. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were bound to satisfy themselves before they sold cholum and ragi to the defendants, that they had the necessary license to purchase the same, and that they were not entitled to recover Rs. 600 or other expenses incurred by them in defending the criminal case and appeal, that there was no amount due from the defendants for the balance of sale price to the plaintiffs, that no rent was payable by them and no interest was thereupon due. The suit was consequently dismissed with costs. In appeal the appellate Court held that the defendants had misrepresented to the plaintiffs that they had necessary licence to purchase the millets, that the plaintiffs bona fide believed them and sold the same, that the defendants were made liable to make good the loss incurred by the plaintiffs, that they were entitled to godown rent at Re. 0-4-0 per 10 bags per month and interest at 6 per cent, per annum and in this view passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, for a part of the amount.

(2.) In S.A. No. 935 of 1949 the High Court set aside the judgment in appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law. After the remand the first appellate Court considered the evidence afresh and held that Bapanayya who is alleged to have made the representation was not examined by either party, and even if Bapanayya's deposition in the criminal case, Exhibit B-20, was taken into consideration, it did not show that any representation was made as alleged. In these circumstances it held that the plaintiffs were bound to insist upon the production of the licence itself or to make independent inquiries and satisfy themselves that the defendants had possessed that licence. It is not sufficient to say that the plaintiffs merely believed the representation of the defendants because the defendants happened to be doing business on a very large scale and paying income-tax to the Government, nor does it avail the plaintiffs to say that the defendants purchased millets from other merchants in Eluru at or about the same time. The learned Judge observed : "If that is true, it only shows that the plaintiffs were themselves responsible for believing that the defendants had a licence to purchase millets and cannot blame the defendants."

(3.) He further held that the plaintiffs were themselves partlceps crimials and having participated in the commission of the offence, they cannot seek to recover any fine paid or other expenses incurred by them. In so far as the purchase price of the goods bought is concerned both the Courts held that that has been paid off and the amount now sued for represented substantially a sum of Rs. 600 paid towards fine and other legal expenses, godown rent and interest. In the result it dismissed the appeal.