MEHTA CHAND Vs. KUNDANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a very chequered career and illustrates how technicalities and pleas relating to procedure were allowed to delay the disposal of the case.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents Kundanmal, Kistoorchand and Moolchand of Bandikui brought a suit on 13th October, 1947, more than 16 years back in the Court of Munsif, Bandikui, for recovery of Rs. 476-14-0 against the defendants Sohanmal, now dead and represented by Harishchand, the third defendant, and Mehtabchand. THE plaintiffs' case was that the defendants' firm placed at the disposal of the plaintiffs' firm five wagons of salt containing 590 bags for sale in partnership, the share of the parties being half and half. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants employed Madhomal took an amount of Rs. 3,600/- from the plaintiffs' firm. THE plaintiffs further spent an amount of Rs. 575. 5. 3 in obtaining delivery under the railway receipts. THE plaintiffs paid Rs. 900/- to Harsahay Lichhminarain at the instance of the defendants on 13th October, 1944. THE plaintiffs further debited an amount of Rs. 61. 7. 6 on account of hiring carts and annas 0/2/0 on account of choki-dari. THE total cost of the sale was thus calculated as Rs. 5,136. 14. 9. THE plaintiffs' case further is that the salt was sold in various instalments and the total sale proceeds amounted to Rs. 4,507. 2. 9. To this amount, the plaintiffs further added Rs. 123. 9. 6 on account of 'adath' and rent and Rs. 200. 2. 0 on account of interest and annas 0/4/0 an account of notice expreses. THE total loss in the transaction was calculated at Rs. 953-13-0 and the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 476-14-0 as being the defendants' share of the loss. THE defendants contested the suit on various grounds. THEy did not admit partnership with the plaintiffs. THEir case was that the transaction between the parties with regard to the salt was one of out-right sale by the defendants to the plaintiffs. It may be mentioned here that the defendants did not take any plea that the suit being not one for accounts was not maintainable as such although they took various other legal defences that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties and that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.