MADIVALLAPPA IRBHADRAPPA Vs. MALLAPPA SOMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was instituted by Madivallappa Irbhadrappa as the manager of a joint Hindu family, to recover damages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that Basappa, the husband of Defendant No. 1, had entered into an agreement for the purchase of twenty-five bales of yarn at a specified rate; that Basappa deposited the sum of Rs. 2,000 and agreed to pay the balance on December 8, 1918; that he failed to tike delivery of the goods and thereby broke the contract; that the contract had been made with Rachappa, who was then conducting the family business as its manager; that Rachappa was dead, and the plaintiff had succeeded him as the manager of the joint family business.

(2.) The defence was that the contract was made with Rachappa personally and not as manager of the family business and the suit should, therefore, have been brought by his son Kalyanappa, and not by the plaintiff; that the agreement was byway of wager; and that it was Rachappa who broke the contract. The trial Judge held that it was not competent to the plaintiff alone to bring this action. Ha said: In the evidence recorded there is nothing to show that Rachappa entered into the contract in the course of the ordinary business of the firm or that he was empowered to enter into contracts of that sort as manager. The contract is in Rachappa's own name and ha is now dead. The defendant has a perfect right to insist that Rachappa's heirs or survivors in union be brought on the record, se that there be no fear of a future litigation. The mere fact that the transaction in suit perhaps finds a place in the accounts of the family business would not save him u ider all circumstances.

(3.) The Judge further held that the agreement was by way of wager. He, accordingly, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the transaction was not a water; also, that Basappa had broken the contract. But he affirmed the decree of the trial Court on the ground that Richappa's heir was the only person who could maintain the suit. He says: It has been admitted that the firm had not been dealing in yarn but in cloth and money-lending, and that Rachappa made the contract not at his shop at Jamkhandi but at the village of Rabkavi. The contract was the first of its sort, and was for a very large sum ; so it is difficult to see how the other members of the family could have been held to be liable for any loss which might have resulted. In the absence of evidence of this consent, as in this case, they would have had a perfect defence, since partners in a family business are only bound by the acts of their manager when he is engaged in a business which they have authorized him to conduct.