KHALAK SINGH Vs. GWALIOR ICE FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.7.2001 passed by the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in civil suit No.162-B/1996.

(2.) Appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit before the trial Court submitting therein that plaintiff had through his brothers deposited Phufari Badshah High Yielding variety of 22 quintals and 42 kgs of potato seeds in the Cold Storage on 20th March, 1991. As the Cold Storage had not commenced working on 20th Mach, 1991, therefore, his brothers Rameshwar and Narendra had left the potato at the Cold Storage which were recorded in the defendant's register on 29.3.1991 and the receipt Ex.P/1 was issued to the effect that as per Parcha No.3 potato was deposited in the Cold Storage. In para 3 of the plaint, it is mentioned that a bond was filled in the name of the plaintiff in regard to depositing of such seeds. It is further submitted that on 13.9.1991 when sowing season commenced brothers of the plaintiff had approached the defendant seeking delivery of the seeds, but defendant had informed them that defendant shall deliver the seeds to the owner i.e. the plaintiff. It is not disputed that plaintiff had visited the defendant on 29.9.1991 without taking the receipt alongwith him when defendant had refused to handover the potato seeds allegedly deposited by the plaintiff. On 30.9.1991 a registered letter was sent to the Manager of the Gwalior Ice Factory, Barafkhana, Tansen Road, Gwalior, Ex.P/2 alongwith AD card, Ex.P/3, which was returned on 1.10.1991 and thereafter a notice, Ex.P/4, was sent through UPC receipt Ex.P/5. It is also an admitted fact that receipt Ex.P/1 was issued by one Kaptan Singh (PW-3) who had also sent a communication to the Manager of Gwalior Ice Factory as is contained in Ex.P/7 asking the Manager to handover the potatoes contained in Parcha No.3 to younger brother of Khalak Singh Yadav, namely Rameshwar Singh. It is submitted that when potatoes were not given nor any reply to legal notice was furnished, suit was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the evidence of the Plaintiff Khalak Singh (PW-1), his brother Rameshwar (PW-2) and Kaptan Singh (PW-3). Reading their statements, examination and cross-examination, he submits that Khalak Singh (PW-1) has categorically mentioned that cost of the potato seeds was 8,968/- and if they would have sown these seeds, then plaintiff would have harvested about 200 quintals of potato which would have entailed in savings of Rs. 24,750/- and this is the amount which has been claimed in the suit in the alternative of the prayer to return the potato seeds. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to the statement of Rameshwar (PW- 2) and submits that this witness has proved the transaction specifically when they examined Kaptan Singh (PW-3) who was admittedly a former employee of the defendant Ice Factory. Kaptan Singh (PW-3) has admitted his signatures on Ex.P/1 as 'A' to 'A' and seal of the Factory from 'B' to 'B' which means that Kaptan Singh in his capacity as a servant and agent of the defendant was entitled to issue receipt as is contained in Ex.P/1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the provisions contained in section 226 of the Indian Contract Act and submits that if Kaptan Singh had entered into a contract on behalf of the principal, then obligations arising from the acts done by the agent, may be enforced in the same manner as if the contract had been entered into by the principal in person. He has also placed reliance on two judgments of the High Court. His first reliance is on the judgment in the case of Hussain Khan v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 1999(II) MPJR SN 53 wherein the ratio is that if policy documents sent through Inspector of Insurance Company, then principal is bound by the acts of the agents and Insurance Company is bound by the terms of policy. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramibai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India as reported in 1981 JLJ 388 wherein the ratio is that Section 67 of the Evidence Act does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person and signatures may be proved in any one or more of the following modes i.e. by calling a person who signed or wrote a document or by proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it. Since Kaptan Singh has admitted his signatures on Ex.P/1 and his relationship with the defendant is not in dispute, plaintiff was not required to prove anything beyond this, and therefore, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit.