B CHINNAMMA Vs. DHANALAKSHMI RICE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by defendants 2,4 and the legal representatives of defendant No. 3 under the following circumstances. The Plaintiffs filed the present suit against defendants 1 to 4 to recover a sum of Rs. 3,352 33 ps with interest and costs They sought decree against 1st defendant personally. So tar as defendants 2 to 4 were concerned, the plamtiff prayed for a decree against the estate of Bayya Venkatasubbalah whose legal representative defendants 2 to 4 are. 2nd defendant is Bayya Venkata Subbaiah's wife atd defendants 3 and 4 are his daughters. 3rd defendant dud during the pendency of this litigation. It is the plaintifts case that they supplied to 1st defendant thought one Punnalah 40 bags of rice on credit. The transaction was concluded thiough Bayya Venkata Subbaiah who was the broker. The defendants failed to pay that amount and, therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit against 1st defendant. The legal representatives of Bayya Venkata Subbaiah were impleaded because, according to the plaintiffs, he was the broker who guaranted the payment by Ex. A-5 dated 6th January 1969. It was also contended in me alternative that by virtue of Ex. A-5 Bayya Venkatasubbaiah was liable to indemnity the plaintifts for the loss which might be sustained by them in this transaction. 1 st defendant who contested the suit contended that the goods were not supplied to him through punnaiah or anyone else. Defendants 2 to 4 contended that Bayya Venkatasubbaiah had not guaranteed the payment of the amount to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge found that Bayya Venkatasubbaiah had not guaranteed the payment, that the goods were delivered to Punnaiah and that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that they were supplied to 1st defendant The learned trial Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs challenged the decree in appeal to the District Court. The learned Appellate Judge found that the goods were not supplied by the plaintiffs to 1st defendant. He therefore, confirmed the decree passed in favour of 1st defendant. However, he recorded the conclusion that the goods were delivered to Punnaiah at the instance of Bayya Venkata Subbaiah and that since Bayya Venkatasubbaiah had undertaken to pay the amount to the plaintiffs, defendants 2 to 4 were liable to pay the amount to the extent of Bayya Venkatasubbaiah's assets in their hands.

(2.) The learned Appellate Judge, therefore, reversed the decree so far, as defendants 2 to 4 were concerned and passed decree in favour of the plaintiff, directing defendants 2 to 4 pay the decretal amount to the plantiffs. It is that decree which is challenged by 2nd defendant, 4th defendant and legal representatives of 3rd defendant in this second appeal. The only contention which has been raised on behalf of the appealing defendants is that Bayya Venkatasubbaiah had neither guaranteed the payment nor had he agreed to indemnify the plaintiffs if any loss was caused to the latter.

(3.) The controversy between the parties turns upon the construction of letter dated 6th January, 1969 (Ex.A-5) written by Bayya Venkatasubbaiah to the plaintiffs. Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs had contended that while construing Ex A-5 the Court should bear in mind the circumstances attending upon the transaction. In particular, hs has laid emphasis upon the fact that the plaintiffs did not know 1st defendant nor did they know Punnaiah to whom goods were actually delivered. They knew Bayyavenkatasubbaiah who was the broker and who had introduced Punnaiah to them. Ex.A-5 which Bayya Venkatasubbaiah wrote to the plaintiffs was in Telugu. The following is its official translation :