PABOODAN GOOLABCHAND Vs. MJMILLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a marwari banker at Coonoor, sued for recovery of a sum of money representing the balance due under a running account of advances and dealings between himself and the second defendant, when the latter was in management of an estate known as the High Field Estate near Coonoor. The plaint prayed for a decree not only against the second defendant but also against defendants 1 and 3 and against the estate of W.M. Miller, the deceased father of the first defendant and the husband of the third. It is difficult to understand the ground on which the third defendant was sought to be made liable, and as the lower Court exonerated her and that part of the decision has not been appealed against, it is unnecessary to refer to that part of the claim any further. The suit was decreed as against the second defendant, but dismissed as against the first. The second defendant has allowed the decree against him to become final. The plaintiff has appealed against so much of the lower Court's decree as dismissed the claim against the first defendant.

(2.) W.M. Miller was the last owner of the High Field Estate and he bequeathed it to the first defendant and certain others, subject to a life interest in favour of the third defendant. The first defendant was one of the executors under his father's will and he alone took out Probate. Under Ex. B (11 April, 1927) the first defendant appointed the second defendant his agent for the management of the High Field Estate and though the third defendant was also appointed agent, she was away from India during part of the material period and even during the period of her stay at Coonoor (January to December, 1928) she left the management in the second defendant's hands. It is the plaintiff's case that between August, 1927 and October, 1929, the second defendant "in a usual and regular conduct, management and superintendence of the High Field Estate" drew moneys from the plaintiff from time to time, for the payment of the staff and labour of the estate and its working expenses, taxes and public dues . Repayments ued to be made by the second defendant by cash or by cheque and sometimes by the supply of tea grown on the estate. In October, 1929, the balance due to the plaintiff was found to be Rs. 15,000 and by an agreement (Ex. TT) dated 28 October, 1929, between the plaintiff and the second defendant, it was arranged that this amount should be treated as an advance for the supply of tea from the estate for a period of three years. As the third defendant repudiated this agreement, the plaintiff claims payment of the amount of Rs. 15,000 treated as advance under that agreement.

(3.) The first defendant was sought to be made liable on two grounds: (i) that the second defendant acted within the limits of his authority in borrowing moneys from the plaintiff and (ii) that the first defendant and the estate have benefited by the moneys paid by the plaintiff from time to time, "the same having been spent for the business of the estate, the maintenance of the staff and payment of its taxes and dues". The first defendant contended that Ex. B the power of attorney did not authorise the second defendant to borrow, that there was no necessity for him to borrow for estate purposes and that the second defendant must, if at all, have borrowed from the plaintiff for other businesses of his own. He denied that any money borrowed from the plaintiff was used for or on the estate. The agreement of October, 1929 (Ex. TT) he denounced as the result of a conspiracy between the second defendant and the plaintiff, got up apparently with a view to render the plaintiff's position stronger, at the expense of the estate.