GULZAR AHMAD Vs. SHEVA SHANKAR SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for the price of work done in connection with the repairs of a tent. The only defendant to the suit is the respondent, Shiva Shankar Sahai. He pleaded that he did not give the order for the repair of the tent on his own behalf, but as the agent for the Bonaili Raj. Both Courts have dismissed the plaintiff s suit, holding that the defendant was merely agent and not personally liable. The appellont relies upon the provisions of Section 230 of the Contract Act. That section is as follows : In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases : "(1) where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad : "(2) where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal : "(3) Where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued.

(2.) The defendant in giving his evidence stated that he could not remember that he ever mentioned who were the owners of the Banaili Raj : and it is contended, therefore, on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant was personally liable because he did not disclose the name of his principal. It is true that the actual names of the owners of the Raj were not disclosed, but there would not have been the least difficulty in the plaintiff s finding out who they were had he taken the trouble to do so. Assuming, however, that from the omission to mention the names of the owners a presumption arose that the contract between the parties was that the defendant should be personally liable, it is of course a presumption which can be rebutted. In our opinion the Courts below found and intended to find that the plaintiff never did the work or supplied the goods on the credit of the defendant. He knew that the defendant was the manager for the Raj, that the goods were being supplied and the work done for the Raj to be paid for by the Raj. This is the only possible inference that could be drawn from the statement of the defendant himself and it means that the presumption was rebutted This being so, in our opinion, the plaintiff s claim was rightly dismissed and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.

(3.) We hope that for the honour of the Raj a fain and reasonable sum will be paid for the work which was done.