PASALA PEDDA VEERAIAH Vs. KAMMANURU SRINIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against this judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 passed in OS No.166 of 1991 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Cuddapah, which was confirmed by the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Cuddapah, in AS No.41 of 1995, dated 9-6-1997.

(2.) Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, strenuously contended that the Courts below failed to take note of the proviso to Rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules'), under which no liability can be fixed on the Commission Agent for the goods sold by the seller to the purchaser directly. As such the question of payment of any amount by the Commission Agents-appellants for the goods sold in the market-yard does not arise. Even assuming that the appellants are liable to pay the amount, as the suit is not for rendition of accounts, the first transaction dated 14-3-1988 under which the respondent is now claiming Rs.8,820.00 is squarely barred by limitation and to that extent the judgment and decree of the Courts below have to be set aside.

(3.) The undisputed facts in this case are that the appellants herein are doing Commission Agency business in Cuddapah District Market Yard under the name and style Veeranjaneya Traders, after obtaining licence from the market yard. On 14-3-1988 the respondent herein entrusted to the appellants two turmeric bags of Kadi variety and nine turmeric bags of Vunta variety for sale. Likewise on 12-1-1989 the respondent entrusted another seven turmeric bags of Vunta variety to the appellants for sale. When sale consideration for the above turmeric was not paid to the respondent, he got a legal notice issued on 15-7-1991, which was marked as Ex.A1. The appellants in their reply dated 24-7-1991, which was marked as Ex.A2, while admitting entrustment of the turmeric on the first occasion, denied the second entrustment. As far as the payment of sale consideration is concerned, it is their case that the turmeric was sold by the respondent directly to the purchaser by using his officers as commission agent and immediately after the sale was over on 14-3-1988 the sale consideration was paid to the respondent after deducting the commission and other incidental expenses. Hence there is no liability on his part to pay any amount. Thereafter, the respondent field OS 166 of 1991 on the file of the III Addl. District Munsif, Cuddapah, for recovery of Rs. 17,010.00towards value of the turmeric entrusted to the appellants with interest and costs. The appellants stuck to his version in the written statement apart from contending that the suit is barred by limitation.