RAM SARUP Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit against his commission agent praying for rendition of accounts for the Sambat years 1973 to 1975 and for a decree for Rs. 8,000 or whatever additional amount may be found due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the firm, Lachhman Das Bhojraj at Jalaun, and the defendant Kanhaiya Lal is the proprietor of the firm Kanhaiya Lal Baijnath at Shamli in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The plaintiff's case is that there were transactions of purchase and sale of wheat and the result of are accounting on 13 October 1918, was that a sum of Rs. 6,838-12-6 was found to the credit of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that no money was due to the plaintiff. His case was that the plaintiff entered into certain transactions with his shop at Jalalabad and Shamli and on an account of all the transactions having been settled it was found that a sum of Rs. 5,260 was due to the defendant by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge holding that the defendant admitted the agency passed a preliminary decree on 6 January 1922. There was an appeal to this Court and on 20 January 1925, the defendant's appeal was allowed, the decree of the Subordinate Judge set aside and the case remanded to the Court below with certain directions. It is admitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the remand was one under the provisions of Rule 23, Order 41, Civil P.C. The case having gone back to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar the learned Subordinate Judge recorded the statement of the parties and framed issues. It was admitted before him that up to 13 October 1918, Rs. 6,838-12-6 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of profits of khatti transactions at Shamli. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff purchased some other khattis at Jalalabad and some grain at Baraut and got the payment made for them by the defendant and finally there was a balance of a large sum of money in favour of the defendant's firm. The learned Subordinate Judge states in the judgment at p. 20: I examined the parties and find that the only points on which they ate at difference are about this alleged settlement of account, about the fact whether the plaintiff entered into any transactions at Jalalabad and Baraut through the defendant and the defendant had to pay anything on the plaintiffs account about these transactions.

(2.) The points, therefore, that he had to decide were whether the plaintiff entered into the Jalalabad transactions and the Baraut transactions and whether the defendant had to pay anything on account of the plaintiff for these transactions.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues: (1) Had Fakir Chand and Munshi Lal any authority on behalf of the plaintiff to settle accounts with the defendant and (2) If go, did those persons actually settle the account with the defendant and strike balance of Rs. 5,260 in favour of the defendant and can the plaintiff therefore not now call upon the defendant to render an account?