LALLIMAL BIHARILAL Vs. RAMBABOO VAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the nine plaintiffs, who describe themselves as members of Gwalior Agrico Dealers' Association, eight have appealed against the verdict rendered in their suit by the trial Court. In the array of defendants/ respondents figures several persons, but only as pro forma parties. Defendant/respondent No.1 Rambaboo Vaishya only filed written statement and contested the suit.

(2.) Before reference is made to the pleadings, issues, evidence and the impugned judgment, it may be appropriate even at this stage to indicate the brief outline of the controversy, because the trial Court has evidently failed to grapple satisfactorily with the legal complexion of the issues involved. Indeed, there is no reference at all in the impugned judgment to the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, the Sale of Goods Act, or even the general law of Torts on which the foundation of plaintiffs' claim actually rested. Shortly put, the plaintiffs sued the contesting defendant for wrongful detention of their goods and, it was necessary, therefore, to adjudge the merits of that claim and of the justification advanced by the contesting defendant in meeting that claim. The suit was, undoubtedly, an action of detinu, but the trial Court, misdirected itself in framing unnecessarily as many as 15 issues in deciding the controversy.

(3.) On pleadings, the facts which are admitted may be stated at once. Evidence, oral and documentary, has clearly established the position that in the year 1950 there was shortage of