w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Sathyanarayana v/s Jayam Oil Mills

Company & Directors' Information:- N K OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15201GJ1994PTC022669

Company & Directors' Information:- B P OIL MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1965PLC003232

Company & Directors' Information:- K P L OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1983PTC003685

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1999PTC013095

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142KL2000PTC013621

Company & Directors' Information:- S N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142HR1986PTC025702

Company & Directors' Information:- G. B. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15326HR1985PTC019817

Company & Directors' Information:- R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1992PTC047883

Company & Directors' Information:- J K OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15143UP1955PLC002570

Company & Directors' Information:- N N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15147MH1999PTC117989

Company & Directors' Information:- J & T OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL2006PTC019754

Company & Directors' Information:- JAYAM OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15493TN1997PTC039221

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15315CH1994PTC014265

    S.A.No.539 of 1994

    Decided On, 25 January 2005

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras


    For The Appellant: S.Venkateswaran, Advocate. For The Respondent: --

Judgment Text

The second appeal has been filed by the first defendant Sathyanarayana against whom decree has been passed by way of concurrent judgments by the District Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.231 of 1987 as well as the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.129 of 1993.

2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8906/= with interest on account of supply of groundnuts to the value of Rs.62,500/= to the first defendant being the balance amount of Rs.7500/=.

3. The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by saying that on 26.3.1986 one Ramalingam calling himself as representative of the plaintiff-firm came with the load of groundnuts in a lorry bearing registration No.TNP 2913 and approached the first defendant to purchase the same and that since the groundnuts were not dry enough, the first defendant refused to receive the same and that however, after obtaining permission of the plaintiff-firm, the said Ramalingam sold the grounds to the first defendant and that since there was short of weight to the extent of 711 kgs., the price was agreed to be Rs.55,000/= alone and the said amount of Rs.55,000/= also was paid to the said Ramalingam and thereby this suit as if Rs.7500/= is remaining unpaid cannot be sustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. On trial, nine documents have been marked and the Accountant of the plaintiff-firm viz., one Sivagnanam and the representative viz., Ramalingam were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 on the side of the plaintiff and that seven documents have been marked and one Achutharao has been examined as DW1 on the side of the defendants. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available for either side, the Trial Court viz., the District Munsif, Panruti decreed the suit for Rs.7500/= with interest at 6% per annum from 29.3.1986 till 15.4.1987 with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved against such judgment and decree, the first defendant viz., Sathyanarayana preferred A.S.No.129 of 1993 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore and after enquiry, the Sub Court, Cuddalore concurred with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

5. Now, the counsel for the appellant/first defendant urged that both the courts below have failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in proper way and particularly failed to take note of the endorsements made by PW2 Ramalingam in Ex.B1 viz., letter dated 24.3.1986 and that if those endorsements upon Ex.B1 are taken into consideration, the first defendant cannot be made liable to pay the suit amount inasmuch as payment of Rs.55,000/= was made only in full settlement.

6. On the other hand, if Ex.B1 and endorsements contained therein are perused, I am able to see that the goods have been delivered on 26.3.1986 and demand draft has been received for Rs.55,000/= by PW2 Ramalingam on 26.3.1986 and that particularly the said Ramalingam himself in his evidence has categorically admitted his signatures alone and not admitted the contents of the endorsements and that further, the words "in full settlement" are obviously seem to be with different ink probably by way of interlineation. Therefore, both the courts below have concurrently appreciated this Ex.B1 and the endorsements therein to the effect that the said words "in full settlement" could not have been made by the said Ramalingam and they should have been interlineated with different ink for the purpose of contesting the suit. I am also of the view that the said words "in full settlement" appear to be interlineated with different ink. It is also proababilised by the fact that PW2, who is said to have received demand draft for Rs.55,000/= in full settlement according to the first defendant, has chosen to deny the receipt of the demand draft in full settlement as such. It is more so when PW2 himself has further stated that price was never fixed at Rs.55,000/= and it was not fixed with the permission of the plaintiff-firm as pleaded by the first defendant and instead after handing over the demand draft for Rs.55,000/=, the first defendant assured that he would pay the remaining amount of Rs.7500/= afterwards.

7. Moreover, it is to be noted that if really there had been short of weight or quality was not upto the standard with sufficient dryness and the first defendant was not prepared to purchase the groundnuts for the said reason, there is nothing to prevent the first defendant from contacting the plaintiff-firm by telephone immediately and informing that he could not be in a position to purchase the groundnuts for Rs.62,500/= and he was prepared only to pay Rs.55,000/=. But, it is not so the conduct of the first defendant. Moreover, even if such contact by telephone was not possible, there is nothing to prevent the first defendant to obtain specific letter either from PW2 Ramalingam or from the lorry driver to the effect that there was short of weight and quality was not with sufficient dryness and that is why Rs.55,000/= was fixed and then demand draft was handed over. It would be the natural conduct of any purchaser in ordinary course of prudence. But, it is not so the conduct of the first defendant.

8. Further, PW2 Ramalingam cannot be considered as an agent on behalf of the plaintiff-firm within the meaning of Contract Act and Ex.B1 letter issued by the plaintiff-firm on 24.3.1986 itself only authorises the said PW2 Ramalingam as representative to receive the demand draft from the first defendant and nothing else. Therefore, it is too much on the part of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

first defendant to say as if PW2 Ramalingam, as an agent of the plaintiff-firm, agreed to fix the price at Rs.55,000/= and receive the demand draft for the same amount in full settlement. It is more so when PW2 himself has not admitted as if he conceded the price of Rs.55,000/= after consulting the plaintiff-firm. Therefore, in all reasonableness and proababilities, I am of the view that the concurrent findings and judgments of both the courts below are correct and there is no need for interference by this court. 9. Accordingly, the second appeal fails as there are no merits and the same is dismissed with costs.