DURGA PRASAD SARAWGI Vs. FATEH CHAND KANOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of Law, J. dated 21st September, 1964 by which the appellant's suit was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant filed the suit against the defendants and claimed a decree of RS. 8602.00. The defendants are Fatehchand Kanoi and Abirchand Kanoi They are described as residing and/or carrying on business at Sujangarh in the State of Rajputana. The appellant and his eldest brother Manickchand Saraogi in their business of Manickchand Durgaprosad had dealings and transactions with the defendants The transactions are alleged to relate to buying and selling of jute and other goods. The transactions are alleged to be prior to S. Y. 2015 corresponding to 1957-1958 The further allegations of the appellant are that the accounts between the appellant and his brother Manickchand Saraogi on the one hand and the defendants on the other were gone into and finally settled and adjusted. Fatehchand Kanoi for himself and as agent of his son Abirchand Kanoi is alleged by the appellant to have agreed at Calcutta to pay to the plaintiff one half of the amount due together with interest. The appellant alleged in the plaint that the defendant Fatehchand Kanoi for himself and as authorised agent of his son Abirchand Kanoi acknowledged and/or entered the sum due as alleged in the plaint to the plaintiff unconditionally in a writing signed by him for self and as authorised agent of Abirchand Kanoi. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the appellant alleged that the sum of Rs. 8602.00 was due and owing on the basis of the accounts adjusted or settled.

(3.) The defendants filed separate written statements. The defendants appeared at the trial. Various issues were raised on behalf of the defendants. The defences will appear from the issues raised Broadly stated, the defences were first, that there was no transaction between the appellant and his brother on the one hand and the defendants on the other as alleged in the plaint. Secondly, that there was no settlement or adjustment of account. Thirdly, that Fatehchand did not agree to pay to the appellant the share. Fourthly, that there was no consideration for the writing referred to in the plaint. Fifthly, that Fatehchand did not have any authority. Sixthly, the authority of Fatehchand was questioned and the dissolution of the firm Manickchand Durgaprosad was also questioned in the written statement. Seventhly, it was pleaded that according to the practice or usage of the firm of Manickchand Durgaprosad, accounts used to be sent to the business of defendants for signature for submission to the Income-Tax and Sales Tax Authorities and further, it was the practice and usage of the defendants to sign such papers.