RAMNARAYAN Vs. FIRM MANGERAM RADHESHYAM HARDOI U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Court has accepted the preliminary objection raised by the defendants-respondents to the maintainability of the suit for the relief of bare declaration without claiming any further relief. The suit has accordingly been dismissed. The plaintiffs challenge this dismissal of their suit by this appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 4 is a partnership firm. It had entered into certain commercial transactions with defendant No. 1 which is a partnership firm trading at Hardoi in U. P. Defendant No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. According to the plaintiffs appellants, defendant No. 1 was the commission agent and used to supply Singdana to plaintiff No. 4 on approval. The transactions ranged between Feb. 1975 to April 1975. Thereafter some dispute appears to have arisen between the parties. There was exchange of letters, telegrams and notices between the parties.

(3.) On 16-4-1975, plaintiff No. 4 required 5 wagons of Singdana to be sent to it. However, on 17-4-1975, defendant No. 1 was asked not to make purchases at higher rate. Defendant No. 1 nevertheless purchased two trucks of Singdana at Rs. 350/- per quintal for plaintiff No. 4. It appears that defendant No. 1 purchased Singdana at Rs. 360/- per quintal and also at Rs. 362.50 per quintal. It appears that defendant No. 1 wanted to sell certain quantity of Singdana to plaintiff No. 4. Sometime in May 1975, some quantity of Singdana was sent to plaintiff No. 4 at Itarsi and the railway receipt and demand draft were sent through the Bank. They were not honoured by plaintiff No, 4. The plaintiffs alleged that on 26-6-1975 accounts between the parties of all their dealings were settled at Itarsi and a sum of Rs. 1,02,521/- was found due to defendant No. 1 from plaintiff No. 4, According to the plaintiffs, this was in final settlement of all the dues. However, defendant No. 1 alleged that it had certain more dues outstanding against the plaintiffs and made a demand for the same alleging that plaintiff No. 4 had committed breach of contract to purchase 5 wagon-load of Singdana and was liable for damages. The total amount then claimed by defendant No. 1 was Rupees 41,509.60. It is the plaintiffs' allegation that no such amount was due to defendant No. 1 from either of them and the claim was false. According to them, ac- counts were settled finally on 26-5-1975 at Itarsi and nothing was due from them to defendant No. 1. The precise allegation in this behalf is contained in para 11 of the plaint which is as follows: