G NARASIMHULU CHETTI Vs. KSUNDARA CHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the evidence establishes that Mr. Devarajulu Naidu had authority to sell the house in question on behalf of the defendants-an authority to sell either at the price for which he purported to sell it or the best price that could be obtained or at any proper price. In other words, does the evidence establish that he had a general authority to sell the house without a further reference to his clients or principals on whose behalf he purported to be acting ? Then there is the further question, which is to a great extent a question of law, as to whether, assuming that the evidence does establish that Mr. Devarajulu Naidu had authority to sell on behalf of certain principals, he had by virtue of that general authority also an authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the principals so as to bind the principals by that receipt.

(2.) With regard to that second question, I will dispose of it at once before I proceed with the facts of the case. We find the law to be thus stated in Dart on Vendors and Purchasers on page 213 : "He," (that is the agent), " cannot, without special authority, receive the purchase money." One case which is cited by the learned author in support of that proposition is the case of Mynn V/s. Joliffe, which is now to be found reported in 43 Revised Reports, page 802. There it was held that "an agent employed to sell an estate has not, as such, authority to receive payment." It was suggested that that decision had only reference to the facts of that particular case where apparently the agent was an auctioneer and it is suggested in one of the Text Books-Wright on Agency-that that was the effect of the decision. But there is nothing in the decision itself to suggest that its application is to be limited to cases where the agent is an auctioneer. So far as I know, it has never been so suggested in any of the later cases in which this question has been discussed. I also find in the case of Viney V/s. Chaplin (1858) 27 L.J. Ch. 434 the following observation of the Lord Chancellor Cranworth on page 437:-" It is quite clear that if a purchaser pays his purchase money to a person not authorized to receive it, he is liable to pay it over again; and it may, I think, be considered as established, that the possession of the executed conveyance, with the signed receipt for the consideration money indorsed, is not, in itself, an authority to the solicitor of the vendor to receive the purchase money." There were authorities cited by the learned vakil who argued this case on behalf of the respondents, and argued with great ability, but it seems to me none of them is in point with regard to this particular question. None of them displaces the authority of the cases to which I have referred. If it became necessary for me to express an opinion on the point, I am prepared to hold that a mere general authority to sell land does not carry with it an implied authority to receive the purchase money for the land on behalf of the principal.

(3.) Now let us see how the evidence stands in regard to the first question, i.e., does it establish a general authority in Mr. Devarajulu Naidu to sell this house on behalf of the defendants? Mr. Devarajulu Naidu is a Vakil of the High Court. The property in question is owned by two brothers who form an undivided family. Their mother is also alive. On the 20th February 1906 Mr. Devarajulu Naidu wrote the letter Exhibit A. That is the first document which has reference to this transaction. In that letter he acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 2,000 in respect of the sale of the house in question, the price settled according to the letter being Rs. 3,500. The balance, the letter goes on, would be paid in the course of a month. Then the letter says : "I will give you the title-deeds of the house on my return from Nellore which will be on or about the 8 March when you can inspect them." There is not a word in that letter to suggest that Mr. Devarajulu Naidu was acting on behalf of clients. Any one reading the letter, it seems to me, would at once form the impression that he was selling this property on his own behalf.