BAIJULAL Vs. MATADIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the District Judge, Khetri, dated the 10th March 1948, by which the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Khetri, dated the 30th August 1947 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was upheld but the defendants were allowed costs of both the courts.

(2.) BAIJULAL filed a suit against Matadin and Bishveshwardayal for Rs. 236/8/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Khetri, on the allegation that both the parties entered into an agreement about an option in foodgrain viz. , Bajra and Rs. 30/- were paid to the defendants on the date on which this agreement was entered into and subsequently on the 30th September 1942 Rs. 200/-) were further deposited with the defendants and the terms of that agreement were also written in a document executed by Matadin on behalf of Matadin Bishveshwar Dayal. According to the terms of the agreement, margin of profit was to be paid to the defendants on 500 maunds of Bajra to be computed on the basis of the difference between the rate prevailing on 21st January 1942 and the rate fixed in the agreement which was Rs- 4/- per maund. If the rate on the due date was higher than the contractual rate, the amount of the deposit was to be utilised for the payment of the amount of loss, but in the event of the rate on the due date being lower than Rs. 4/- per maund the amount deposited was to be refunded to the plaintiff with interest at 6% per annum. This agreement, it was conceded by the plaintiff, was void ab initio as it was illegal under the provisions of the Foodgrains (Future and Option) Order, 1942. But the plaintiff claimed a refund of the amount paid to the defendants. The reply of the defendants was that Matadin who had signed the document] was minor and that the agreement being illegal and punishable under the provisions of the Foodgrains (Future and Option) Order of 1942 the plaintiff was not entitled to get a refund of the amount paid to the defendants. Further, it was also stated that the rate of Bajra had been higher than the contractual rate and the amount had been credited towards the loss under the terms of the agreement.