POONAM CHAND Vs. FIRM GULAB CHAND POONAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant in suit for recovery of money on certain commercial transactions.

(2.) THE respondent in this case is a firm known as Gulab Chand Poonam Chand carrying on business at Balotra. A suit was filed by the said firm against the appellant Poonam Chand, son of Lala of Guda. and another person, Poonam Chand, son of Birda of Dipal-pura, for recovery of Rs. 2385/- on the allegation that Poonam Chand, son of Lala, by his agent defendant No. 2 carried on business of purchase and sale of yarn through the plaintiff firm, and incurred losses, and that Rs. 2031/14/6 remained outstanding after receiving certain payments. THE plaintiff added Rs. 353/1/6 as interest, and claimed Rs. 2385/ -. THE two defendants filed a joint written statement, in which defendant No. 1 agreed to have carried on business by defendant No. 2 through the agency of the plaintiff firm, but objections were raised to the correctness of the demand on various grounds, the following being relevant for the purpose of this appeal: - (1) That the defendant did not authorise the sale of ten bales on Magh Bud 11, Samwat 1999. at Rs. 9/12/3, 15 bales on Magh Bud 12, at 9/15/4-2. (2) That he did not authorise the plaintiff to purchase 75 bales of yarn on Phalgun Sud 15, Samwat 1999, to cover the aforesaid sale of 50 bales, as also to cover another transaction of 25 bales at 11/12/3, (3) That the sum of Dalali and Dharmada amounting to Rs. 41/14/- was improper, (4) That debit of Rs. 22/10/3 for telegram charges had not been proved, (5) That interest was not contracted for. (6) That the suit was bad for non-joinder, as one Nathmal was not made a party to the suit, and (7) That the transactions were of a wagering nature and the defendant was not liable to pay the loss. THE trial Court cut out interest amounting to Rs. 353/1/6, but decreed the rest of the claim, against defendant No. 1 and absolved defendant No. 2, as being only an agent of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal and the plaintiff put in cross-objections. THE appeal was dismissed the cross-objections were allowed, and the entire claim for Rs. 2385/- was decreed.