RASH BHARI KARURI Vs. NARAIN DAS DORILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Buckland, dated the 26 January 1922. The facts of the case may be taken from his judgment at pp. 268 and 269 of the paper-book, which are as follows: The plaintiff firm carry on business at Chandusi in the United Provinces. The defendant carries on business as a ghee and sugar merchant in Calcutta, The goods were consigned to Joy Gopal Joy Kisssen, a firm formerly carrying on business in Calcutta. In the latter part of April 1920 Joy Gopal Joy Kissen sent their gomostha Ram Charan to Chandausi where ghee was purchased. A consignment consisting of 457 tins of which the value is stated to be Rs. 18,815-9-9 was despatched by rail to Calcutta under Railway receipt No. 19818. The Railway receipt was handed over to Ram Charan who brought it to Calcutta to his employers where it was received in the usual course of two or three days later. It is alleged that on or about the 30 April, Joy Gopal Joy Kissen were closing down their business and in insolvent circumstances, and on the 2 May, a telegram was sent from Etawah where, amongst other places, business was carried on by Joy Gopal Joy Kissen, saying that that firm had failed and instructing the firm of Harnandroy Fulchand in Calcutta to detain the ghee. On the next day Messrs. Pugh & Co., were instructed to write a leter to the Railway Company which they did on behalf of the plaintiff to stop delivery of the goods under the Railway receipt to the consignee, as the latter had become insolvent. A telegram was also sent by the plaintiff firm on the 3 May, from Chandausi to the Goods Superintendent at Howrah to stop delivery of the 457 tins. In the meantime, according to the defendants case, on the 2 May, the Railway receipt which was then in the hands of Joy Gopal Joy Kissen was endorsed by a gomostha of the firm of the name of Haranath in favour of the defendant who is alleged to have paid Rs. 14,000 for it. On the 5 May Doyilal the gomostha of the plaintiff firm arrived at Howrah for the purpose of dealing with the matter He says he could not find Joy Gopal Joy Kissen and he went to the Railway Office. The defendant's manager went for the goods, which he did on the 3rd, 6 and 11th May, according to his evidence but the goods had not arrived. On the 7 May Joy Gopal Joy Kissen were adjudicated insolvents and three days later, on the 10th, a further letter stopping the goods was written by Messrs. Khaitan and Co. on behalf of the Plaintiff. That letter was superfluous, in view of what already had taken place, and on the next day the Defendant's manager says, he came to know at Howrah that Joy Gopal Joy Kissen were in financial difficulties. The ghee arrived at Howrah on the 16 May and on the 19 May, this suit was filed. Three days later by an arrangement which I understand was made under an order of the Court, the ghee was delivered to the Defendant.

(2.) It is necessary to notice, as the learned Judge has pointed out, that the goods in question were delivered under an arrangement, which was sanctioned by the Court, to the Defendant with the result that the seller found himself in the position of the Plaintiff; and, in the suit the first prayer was for declaration that the 457 tins of ghee belonged to the Plaintiff firm and that the Plaintiff firm was entitled to take delivery of the same from the East Indian Railway. In the alternative, a claim was made for a decree for Rs. 18,815 which was alleged to be the value of the goods in question.

(3.) The finding of the learned Judge was as follows: I do not think it is established that Rs. 14,000 were paid by the Defendant to Joy Gopal Joy Kissen for the Railway receipt; circumstances are extremely suspicious, and I am by no means satisfied as to the bona fides of the Defendant in the transaction.