SHA PERACBAND NOPAJI Vs. M G BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though these appeals are three in number and the suits out of which they arose are also three in number, the sould and crux of this diversity in numbers are one and the same. Only the plaintiffs-appellants and the amounts of their claims differ from case to case. But both the defendants respondents and the nature of the dispute are identical. Logically, therefore, same arguments have been addressed in the Court below as well as before us, and the trial Court rendered a single judgment in all of them. We propose to do the same.

(2.) Since the facts in the three appeals are identical, it would be adequate if we state the fads in A-S. 651/74 which arises out of O.S.I 34/69 wherein the plaintiff has claimed the largest amount of the three matters. Suffice it to mention that A S. Nos. 326 and 510 of 1975 arise out of O.S. No. 135 and 136 of 1969 respectively. The plaintiffs-appellants in the first two regular appeals are firms, while the appellant in the last is a single individual. The 1st dcfeadant 1st respondent in all the matters is also a firm. The 2nd respondent is described as an individual. The plaintiff firm filed O.S. 134/69 (it is out of this suit A.S. 651/74 arises) to recover a sum of Rs. 1,09,653-85 ps. with future interest and costs against both the defendants severally and jointly. We will hereafter refer to the parties as they were in the suits. The plaintiff is a registered firm doing the business of bankers, merchants and commission agents at Kurnool. 1st defendant is a public carrier firm with its head office at Yemmiganur and one of its several branches in Kurnool, 2nd defendant is a dealer in old metals and vessels in Kurnool town. He purchases old metals and vessels and sells them in bulk to wholesale merchants within and outside the State of Andbra Pradesh. He sends them by road as well as by rail. When be sends them by road, he has been entrusting the work of transport to the 1st defendant public carrier firm through a system of way bills. These way bills, it may be clarified even at this juncture, are distinct from the way bills required under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to be in form No. X; they are more in the nature of railway receipts and may even by called "lorry receipts", But throughout they have been referred to in this litigation as way bills.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant prepared four copies of the way bills in addition to the original. The original and one copy are given to the consignor viz., 2nd defendant. One is sent with the lorry to the destination. One is despatched to the head-office of the 1st defendant firm at Yemmiganur and one retained in the office of issue. These way bills are documents of title and transferable, according to the plaintiff. After the goods are entrusted to the 1st defendant and way bills are prepared, the 2nd defendant used to endorse the original way bill to the plaintiff's firm, which are bankers and commission agents. An invoice is also drawn in the name of the party at the destination. The 2nd defendant secures a loan from the plaintiff by endorsing the way bill. The plaintiff, in its turn, endorses these way bills to the Central Bank, Kurnool. Not only the way bill is endorsed in favour of the Central Bank but also the hundi which has been drawn by the consignor against the consignee. By making the preliminary advance of the loan, the plaintiff gets its commission. Thus the plaintiff realises the amounts which it has advanced to the 2nd defendant by endorsing the way bill, the invoice and the bundi to the Central Bank. The Bank sends the documents to their branch office at the destination which on their receipt sends intimation to the consignee. The consignee gees to the branch o! the Central Bank at the destination and collects the document after paying the amounts. The consignee thereupon goes to the branch office of the 1st defendant at the destination armed with the way bill and the invoice and collects the goods in their presentation. Between December, 1966, and the 1st week of January, 1967 the 1st defendant obtained as many as 21 way bills and huadies as described in schedule A to the planit. All these hundies were dishonoured as a result of which the Central Bank returned all the documents to the plaintiff and called upon it to pay the amounts the Bank had earlier paid to it. Here it is necessary to remember that the Bank called upon the plaintiff to pay the amount, because it was the plaintiff which endorsed the my bill, the handi and the invoice in favour of the Bank and took money from it. Since there was a legal liability on the part of the plaintiff to pay the Bank, it discharged that liability and called upon both the defendants to reimburse it with the amount. The totality of the claim thus made is Rs. 1,09,653-85 ps. Though the amounts vary in the other suits, the course of events has been precisely the same.