JAGANNATH Vs. CHIRANJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAPNA, J. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent Chiranjilal was that he had sent for a tin of ghee from Naraina, and one such tin of the value of Rs. 62/6/6 was handed over to the cartman of the defendant on 10th April, 1946, to be delivered to the plaintiff at Sambhar. This tin of ghee was duly received by the defendant, but he did not give delivery of the same. A notice was sent on the 21st of July, 1946, without any result. " THE plaintiff claimed Rs. 79/14/- as the cost of ghee wrongfully retained by the defendant. THE defendant's ver-sion was that he had his shop at Sambhar and an agent Shrinarain Ramdev at Naraina. THE defendant had a permit tor 25 tins of ghee to be imported from the then Jaipur State into Sambhar, which was then a Shamlat area, and his agent Shri Narain Ramdev sent 24 tins of ghee for the defendant and certain other persons, and one tin of ghee was given by the plaintiff's agent at Naraina to Shrinarain Ramdev to be carried to Sambhar under the permit held by the defendant. THE cart, which had been engaged for the transport of ghee belonged to the plaintiff himself, and the cartman was also an employee of the plaintiff. It was slated that when the tins of ghee were delivered to the defendant at Sambhar, it was found that three tins had been damaged during the journey and one of them was the tin which was sent for the plaintiff. THE cartman is alleged to have explain d that the bullocks got frightened on one occasion and three tins fell down, one of which came under the wheels of the cart and this was the tin which was to be delivered to the plaintiff. It was weighed next morning, and contained only 1 seer and 5 chhantaks of ghee, which the defendant had offered to deliver to the plaintiff but he did not accept the same.