TMI Blog1951 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,310/9/6. A part payment of the price, in addition to ₹ 2,285/- outstanding to their credit, ₹ 4,000/- were paid in cash by the Plaintiffs thus making a total advance of -Rs. 6,285/- and leaving a balance of ₹ 4,025/9/6 due by them. During the time that this cotton remained unsold there were various other transactions between the parties and except with regard to ₹ 1,136/14/- with which the account of the Plaintiffs was debited on Katik Shudi 7,2000 there is no dispute between them regarding the correctness of the entries in the books of account of the defendants. The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants without any authority from them dishonestly and in order to make wrongful gain had sold their cotton (110 bales) on 25-11-1944 for ₹ 6,296/10/9 at the rate of ₹ 8/8/- per maund and thereby represented that a loss of ₹ 4013/15/- had been sustained. The defendants, on the other hand, urged that the price of cotton had considerably fallen and had a downward tendency and that as there was no margin money with them with which the impending risk could be covered; they notified to the Plaintiffs that unless some more money was sent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date on which the cotton in question is alleged to have been sold. CREDIT DEBIT (1) Magh Badi 12, 1999 (1) ₹ 10310-9-6 price of ₹ 2,285 (Balance of 110 bales Magh. Badi previous account.) 12,1999. (2) Magh Badi 12, 1999 (2) ₹ 39-4-6 loss of ₹ 4,000 (Paid in Gowara Magh Badi cash.) 12, 1999. (3) Har Badi 9, 2000 (3) ₹ 21 cash Baisakh ₹ 230 (Profit of Shudi Ashtmi, 2,000. Cotton May, 2000.) (4) Bhadon Shudi 12, 2000 (4) ₹ 1-10 0 cost of tele- ₹ 100 in cash, at gram Jeth Badi 1, Barnala.) 2000. (5) Assoj Badi 15, 2000 (5) ₹ 12-9-6 loss of cotton ₹ 1536-10-0 (Profit May, Har Badi 9, of Cotton September.) 2000. (6) Katik Shudi 10, 2001 (6) Re. 1 telegram Har ₹ 55 through Hundi. Badi 10, 2000. (7) Re. 1 telegram Har Shudi 8, 2000. (8) ₹ 1600 through Hundi Sawan Badi 9, 2000. (9) ₹ 78-12-0 loss in Bajra Poh, Assoj Badi 15,2000. (10) ₹ 1136-14-0 loss cotton November, Katik Shudi 7, 2000. (11) ₹ 488-2-0 on account of insurance rent and interest, Baisakh Badi 4, 2001,. (12) ₹ 261 interest, rent telegrams and letters Poh Budi 7, 2001. ______________ ______________ ₹ 8,206-11-0 ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced their books of account and examined one Jagan Nath of M/s Sadhu Ram Shiv Ram of Barnala. The transactions were seven in number and the entries in respect of them have not been individually proved by any evidence whatsoever. The name of the scribe of those entries has not been disclosed. Ram Rakha Defendant when he appeared as his own witness did not allege that the Plaintiff Hira Lal had entered into those transactions, regarding November cotton or some of them with Jagan Nath. Jagan Nath has on the contrary stated that Hira Lal had on Bhadon Badi 12, 2000/27-8-1943 sold eight teeps of cotton (one teep is equal to 24 maunds) to him at different rates. In his own books of account, however, the name of the Plaintiffs as sellers, does not appear nor do they indicate that the transactions had been entered into directly with him. There is no separate entry in his Bahis about the eight teeps of cotton alleged to have been purchased by him from Hira Lal Plaintiff. His evidence makes it clear that in the year 1943 he had dealings with the defendants with respect to 29 teeps and the eight teeps regarding the November cotton alleged to have been sold to him by the Plaintiff are include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were made in accordance with facts. The statement of Ram Rakha Defendant shows that the November cotton contracts alleged to have been entered into on behalf of the Plaintiffs were with different persons. There is not a word in his evidence to show that the defendants paid any amount to any person on behalf of the Plaintiffs with regard to these transactions. Even Jagan Nath D.W. has not stated that he was paid anything by the defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs. A commission agent would doubtlessly be entitled to be reimbursed by his principal for the loss sustained by him on his behalf to the extent that he is able to establish the payment made by him for such principal to other persons; but in the present case evidence is entirely lacking that the defendants paid anything to any person in respect of the losses suffered on account of the November transactions entered into by them for the Plaintiffs. Even after the transactions had been settled pursuant to the Government Notification mentioned above, the Plaintiffs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. The right of the agent's lieu on the principal's property is restricted to the goods in respect of which the commission was earned, disbursements made or services rendered. The scope of the agent's lien is not vast enough to include his right to retain even those goods, papers and other property of the principal which were the subject of different and separate transactions. In this view of the law, also the defendants had no right to include the item of ₹ 1,136/4/- in calculating the margin between the amount due to them and what the price of the cotton was likely to fetch. There was thus no cause or justification for selling the Plaintiffs' 110 bales of cotton. 7. Shri Atma Ram has taken us through the evidence produced by the defendants to prove the sale of these bales and has vehemently contended that the alleged sale was a bogus transaction. It is alleged by the defendants that the said bales were sold to one Inder Sain of Mansa. The daughter of Mehar Chand Defendant is married to this Inder Sain. Prior to the sale in question Inder Sain. had no dealings whatsoever with the defendants and was not in account with them. Although the cotton according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out a case of justifiability for the sale, on 25-11-1944 made a half hearted attempt to argue that the defendants had an unpaid seller's lien on the cotton and since a fairly large amount was due to them from the Plaintiffs they were within their right to dispose of the cotton and satisfy their claim. In their own suit the defendants did not base their claim on that ground, and in the suit against them no such plea was taken. The evidence examined by them also shows that the defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' suit on the ground of want of margin money left with them. They never asked the Plaintiffs to pay up the amount that had remained due to them after crediting the amount of ₹ 6,285/- that had been received from the Plaintiffs. The telegram despatched by them on 20-11-1944 was as follows Cotton old 8/10 send money otherwise selling and the telegram that was sent on 25-11-1944 after the sale of the cotton stated No margin sold 110 bales old cotton 8/8 . These messages should leave no doubt that the defendants never intended to exercise the right of an unpaid seller under Section 47, Sale of Goods Act but that they found it necessary to sell the cotton because o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
