RAM DIN HAZARI LAL Vs. MANSA RAM MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages for breach of contract and the refund of earnest money.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that they entered into certain contracts with the firm of Mansaram Murlidhar, defendant, for the purchase of sugar; that they paid the sum of Rs. 11,750 of the total earnest money on seven contracts, and that they received only certain small quantities of sugar on some of the contracts by means not apparently of actual physical delivery of the sugar, but of delivery orders; that the firm was now owned by Ramsaran, a minor son of Murlidhar, the last original proprietor who died in 1912, the said minor being represented by his certificated guardian Mt. Janki Kunwar; that the contracts were entered into between 15th March 1919 and 18 June 1919; that some of the contracts were actually signed by Ramcharan, a minor son-in-law of Mt. Janki Kunwar, the certificated guardian, and that some were signed by a munib, Sheolal, and that all the contracts were negotiated by the principal munib, Bhawani Shankar.

(3.) The defence began by a total denial of everything and the further case as set up may be broadly stated as follows: that the sugar business was a new business and that as such the certificated guardian had no power to start it; that in fact the certificated guardian never did start it but such acts as were done by Ramcharan, Sheolal and Bhawani Shankar were done without the authority of the proprietors of the firm and were done in their own interest; and, lastly, that the contracts were in any case wagering contracts and as such void, and the plaintiffs could not even ask for the return of their earnest money, supposing the payment of such to have been even proved.