BIRBAL Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN disposing of this second appeal we are bound by the findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, We take it then that in the month of July 1907, Tilok was the agent of a zemindar named Tara Chand. There was a person named Hanuman Prasad who was indebted to Tara Chand to the extent of Rs. 416-4-0 on two items of account. One of these was a small sum due on account of costs of a certain decree. The other item was one of Rs. 390-4-0 due on account of arrears of revenue which had been paid by Tara Chand on behalf of Hanuman Prasad, Tara Chiuid being lamlardar, Under these circumstances on the 6th of July 1907, Tilok joining with himself his cousin, Chhiddu Lal, entered into a contract of sale with Hanuman Prasad. By this contract the latter purported to transfer certain immoveable property to Tilok and Chhiddu Lal and covenanted that a sum of Rs. 416-4-0 out of the consideration was to be left with the vendees to pay off a debt due from Hanuman Prasad to Tara Chand. The present suit is one against Tilok after the termination of the agency to recover from him this sum of Rs. 416-4-0 as also other items realised by him as karinda which are not now in dispute. The contentions before us in appeal are that the suit will not lie against Tilok alone and that no decree at all can be passed against him, because there was no privity of contract as between Tara Chand and Tilok in respect of the sale of July the 6th, 1907. It seems to us that the Courts below Lave taken a correct view. When an agent uses a debt due to his principal in order to obtain valuable property for himself he in fact Realises that debt for and on behalf of his principal and is liable to account for the same. It seems to us of no consequence that Chhiddu Lal was joined with Tilok in this transaction. The money representing the debt of Rs. 416- 4-0 virtually came into the possession and control of Tilok and as a matter of fact he tendered evidence, though it has not been believed in the Courts below, to prove that he alone actually paid this money to Tara Chand. We dismiss this appeal with costs.