PEGATRAJU KRISHNA RAO Vs. YANATI SUBBA REDDI (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was the proprietor of Sree Scetharama and Co., which carried on its business at Nellore between 1923 and 1925. Defendants 1 to 3 were carrying on business at Ananthapuram under the name of Sree Lakshmi prasanna Venkateswara Rice Mills. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 1,900 in respect of articles supplied to the defendant firm by the plaintiff firm. The plea of the defendant is one of discharge by payment to the fourth defendant who was according to them acting as the agent of the plaintiff.

(2.) The main question in this case is whether the fourth defendant had authority to receive any moneys on behalf of the plaintiff and payments made to him would be a valid discharge of the obligation of the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's contention is that under the terms of Ex. A, a letter written by the fourth defendant to the plaintiff on the 22 December, 1923, he was only appointed as a commission agent to canvass orders for them on payment of certain percentage of commission on the value of goods supplied. It appears that even before December 1923 he was acting on behalf of the plaintiff's firm and Ex. D-l shows that he was canvassing orders from the defendants 1 to 3 and receiving payments for the value of goods supplied on the part of the plaintiff. The amount now sought to be recovered from the defendants was in respect of goods supplied between the 21 and the 28 July, 1924 on orders given through the 4 defendant. Misunderstandings having arisen between the 4th defendant and the plaintiff, the fourth defendant wrote a letter Ex. H dated 26 July, 1924 stating that he would no longer be an agent to which the plaintiff replied on the 15 January, 1925 that he was bound to act according to the terms of Ex. A for a period of three years provided therein. Subsequent to the exchange of these two letters the fourth defendant appears to have received between the 22 February, and the 25 February, 1925 a sum of Rs. 10,88-0-6 in two instalments from the firm of defendants 1 to 3 and on the 7 March, 1925 the fourth defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff stating that he had realised a sum of Rs. 10,88-0-6 from the defendants and this suit is filed on the 21 July, 1927 over two years from the date of Ex. V.

(3.) The learned District Munsif who tried the suit decreed the plaintiff's claim holding that the payment to the fourth defendant is not a valid discharge and not binding on the plaintiff firm. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed his decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit being of opinion that the fourth defendant had authority to receive the payments.