LAWS(MPH)-1961-2-31

GANGAPRASAD JAGANNATH Vs. RAMPRASAD PANNALAL

Decided On February 02, 1961
Gangaprasad Jagannath Appellant
V/S
Ramprasad Pannalal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals can be conveniently decided by a single judgment.

(2.) FIRM Ram Prasad Pannatal; purchased 519 mds. 10 seers, 4 Chh. of Moong in the Adat of Ganga Prasad Jagannath on June - 18, 1944 For the sake of brevity hereinafter, I will call these firms as 'Ramprasad and Gangaprasad' respectively. Ramprasad instituted a suit against Gangaprasad (Suit No. 25/2002) on July 7, 1945 alleging that the Defendant was bound to export the said Moong for sale; but he did not do so, with the result that he suffered loss at the rate of Rs. 26 -8 -0 per beg (two and half mds.) and claimed a decree for accounts on that basis. In the written statement, Gangaprasad denied that Moong was purchased in Adat and also asserted that the Plaintiff never gave him any instructions as to where and to whom the goods were to be exported. He denied his liability to pay any damages to the Plaintiff On the contrary, he instituted a separate suit (Civil Original suit No 48 of 2002) on August 18, 1945 alleging that the Moong remained with him but Ramprasad did not give any instructions; that market rate was falling, so that he sold the goods in the local market and that entailed a loss to him. In this suit, Ganga Prasad claimed a decree for Rs. 770 against Ramprasad.

(3.) THE main question for determination is whether Defendant Ganga Prasad was under an obligation to export the Plaintiff's goods, and sell them at a place outside Morena. The case for the Plaintiff is that though moong was purchased by the Plaintiff in Defendant's Adat, there was a definite understanding between the parties that the Defendant would endeavour to obtain a permit for its export, and the Defendant had applied for a permit to export the Moong belonging to himself as also that belonging to the Plaintiff. A permit was ultimately issued in his favour, but the Plaintiff apprehended that the Defendant would not export the Plaintiff's goods. He therefore approached the Food, Inspector who summoned the Defendant. Before the Food Inspector, the Defendant agreed to export the Plaintiff's goods and he wrote that admission on the back of the Plaintiff's application to the Food Inspector. But the Defendant did not export the goods. Jagannath, son of Ganga Prasad of the Defendant Firm, (who signed and verified the written statement) was examined on Jan. 31, 1946 under Section of Jabta Diwani corresponding to order 10 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure Code. His statement was: