HURMUKHRAI AMOLUCKCHAND Vs. NAROTAMDASS GORDHANDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs arc a firm of merchants who carry on an extensive business in Bombay and in about fifteen other centres of trade in India. They deal in cotton, seed, wheat and other produce, on their own account and act as shroffs and commission agents for a large number of constituents residing both in Bombay and up country. The defendants are the sons of one Gordhandass Raghunathji who during his lifetime carried on business in piece-goods in the name of his father Raghunathji Tarachand. The said Gordhundass Raghunathji was a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family and the piece-goods business, which he was carrying on jointly with his father, was a family business. Besides the piece-goods business, which appears to be the principal business of the family, Gordhundass during his life-time carried on another business in coloured cloth in his own name in partnership with other persons. The family firm of Raghunathji Tarachand was continued after the death of Gordhandass, which occurred on the 28 of March 1904, for the benefit of the defendants. The first defendant was a minor at the time of his father's death and also at the time this suit was filed. The second defendant is a posthumous son of Gordhandass and was born on the 21 of April 1904. It is common ground between the parties to this suit that the family of the defendants was joint and undivided and that the cloth business carried on in the name of Raghunathji Tarachand always was and is the business of the family.

(2.) The plaintiffs allege that at the request of Gordhandass their Bombay firm acted as Pakki Adut agents and shroffs for his firm of Raghunathji Tarachand and as such agents they in 1903 registered his orders for the sale and purchase of linseed and rapeseed for forward delivery-that at the death of Gordhandass contracts for the purchase by him of 100 tons of linseed and 100 tons of rapeseed had remained open-that the delivery of linseed under the contracts was to be given by them in May 1904 and that of rapeseed in April-May 1904-that they were ready and willing to deliver all these goods to the defendants firm and they actually tendered delivery of all but 25 tons of raposeed--that the defendants firm repudiated Gordhandass transactions and refused to take delivery-that they thereupon sold the goods on the defendants, account and that the said sales resulted in a loss to them of Rs. 3,985-7-9. This sum together with the sum of Rs. 252-8-6 which they claim to be due to them for their commission, brokerage and charity allowance they seek to recover from the defendants and they pray that the defendants either as surviving co-parceners or as heirs of Gordhandass may be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the said two sums of money.

(3.) The defendants by their written statement put the plaintiffs to strict proof of almost all the allegations in the plaint. They contend that dealing in rapeseed and linseed was no part of the family business and that if Gordhandass entered into these transactions they were the private speculations of Gordhandass and were not entered into by Gordhandass as manager of the joint family or on behalf of the family and that they are not liable in respect thereof. They end up by pleading that the transactions set out in the plaint were gaming and wagering transactions and are therefore void and not binding on them. They repudiate all liability in respect of these transactions and pray that the suit may be dismissed with costs.