NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. PIRU BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Baran dated 23-8-1952.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of Rs. 1193-8-9 on the allegations that he had purchased seven bags of dhania Dal at the rate of Rs. 92/- per maund from Messrs. Bheralal Duli-chand, commission Agents of Baran on 27-6-1950. The Dhania Dal weighed 13 mds. 38 seers and 4 chhataks. The cost of empty bags was Rs. 8-12-0 at the rate of Rs. 14-0 per bag and 0-12-9 was on account of Dhannada (charity ). Thus the total amount came to Rs. 1293-8-3. The plaintiff pledged this Dhania Dal on 1-7-1950 with the defendant-respondent for a sum of Rs. 1293-8-3 and paid this amount to messrs. Bherulal Dulichancl. The plaintiff asked the defendant several times that he should deliver the Dhania to the plaintiff on payment of the pledge money. The defendant, however, did not deliver the said commodity in spite of oral request and demand by a note. The plaintiff claimed the price of Dhania at the rate of Rs. 180 per maund from the defendant which came to Rs. 2512-2-0 and prayed that after deducting the sum of Rs. 1293-8-3 and the interest for six months at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and the rent of godown for six months at the rate of 2 annas per bag a sum of Rs. 1184-5-9 on account of the balance of the price of Dhania and Rs. 8-12-0 on account of empty bags and 7 annas on account of the expenses of notice, a total sum of Rs. 1193-8-9, be decreed against the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant respondent filed a written statement. He denied that the Dhania in dispute had actually been purchased by the plaintiff. He pleaded that there was some dispute between him and one Govindram Puranmal on account of a transaction of Imli and the said Govindram Puranmal in order to put undue pressure upon the defendant purchased 7 bags of Dhania Dal from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 108 per maund on 14-6-1950. The defendant came to know immediately about the device of Govindram puranmal and therefore called upon the same to at once pay up the price of dhania Dal in cash to the defendant. Govindram Puranmal did not pay the price in cash and did not take delivery of the Dhania Dal. On this the defendant in order to find out as to what profit or loss could ensue sent the said Dhania to the Arhtiya bherumal Dulichand and asked the plaintiff who was servant at that time to bid at the auction of the Dhania on his behalf, and if his was the highest bid to purchase the Dhania for the defendant in his name. The Dhania was auctioned by Bherulal Dulichand and the highest bid was on Rs. 92 per maund by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. The total amount of the purchase price came to Rs. 1293-8-3 and the said sum was remitted by the defendant to the Arhtiya Bherulal Dulichand. As the Dhaniya was purchased ostensibly in the name of the plaintiff, entries were accordingly made in the account books of the defendant and a suit was filed against Govindram Puranmal for the recovery of the loss suffered on account of the Dhania. The defendant denied that any interest had passed to the plaintiff in the Dhania in dispute, or that he had pledged this Dhania with the defendant. He said that the transaction was altogether Benami and the purchase was in fact for the defendant although ostensibly in the name of the plaintiff.