KANURI SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. VEMURI VENKATA NARAHARI RAO DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been referred to Division Bench by our learned brother Bhimasankaram, J., as he felt that an important question of law is involved in it.

(2.) The 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff, laid an action in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, for recovery of 106 hags of paddy or their value Rs. 1,493. The claim arose under the following circumstances. The plaintiff sold some paddy, the subject-matter of the suit, to the 1st defendant at the price agreed between the parties. Defendants 2 and 3, who are not respondents here, are stated to have delivered the bags to the 1st defendant. As the 1st defendant failed to pay the price, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the defence that at the time of the transaction, there were Ordinances in force known as Madras Food-grains Procurement Order, 1947 and Madras Food-grains (Intensive) Procurement Order 1948, which permitted sale of foodgrains only to persons holding a licence and that, as the 1st defendant was not a licensed dealer the contract was unenforceable against him and consequently the plaintiff could not recover the money claimed by him. By way of rejoinder, the plaintiff asserted that he was not aware that the 1st defendant had no licence to purchase paddy, that in fact the latter represented to him that he had a licence and that he acted upon his representations.