JUDGMENT-The appeal is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3. The cross-objections are filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff, which is a registered Co-operative Society, filed the present suit against defendant No.1, a registered firm and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, styling them to be the partners of that firm, either for the recovery of 1,191 Sarees or in the alternative for its price Rs. 10,260. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case was that defendant No.1 firm were supplied Sarees during the period from 5th December 1959 to 28th January 1964 under a practice called 'Sanjaiti' supply. It was the practice that Sarees were to remain with the defendants in deposit and price was to be paid for the Sarees as the same were sold and defendants were at liberty to return the remaining unsold Sarees. Out of the stock so supplied, it had been the case of the plaintiff that 1191 Sarees were in deposit with defendants and that defendants were liable to return the same or pay the price thereof. After serving a notice produced at Ex. 72 and replied by the defendant as per Ex. 74, the present suit was filed.

2 The defence had been that defendant No.4 was not the partner of defendant No.1. It only consists of the other two defendants being defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Though the dealings are admitted with the plaintiff, the basis of Sanjaiti is denied. Defendants pleaded that in fact the supply had been under two different transactions, one covering the period 5-10-1959 to 30-3-1961 and another distinct transaction from 23-9-1963 to 28-1-1964. For the second period, according to the defendants, everything was paid and there was nothing due for which the defendants could be held liable.

3. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff substantially with regard to the period of 5-10-1959 to 13-3-1961 and holding further that the plea raised by the defendants that defendant No.1 had not received the goods of three Sanjaiti notes of dates 10-12-1959,6·1-1950 and 1-2-1960 was untrue and found that the balance of Sarees for this period with the defendants is 910 Sarees which the defendants are liable to return or pay to the plaintiff for the same. As to the second period between 23-9-1963 and 20-10-1964, it substantially accepted the defence that it was an independent transaction and recorded a finding that defendants had paid for the supply of these Sarees numbering 281 out of the second period. Taking into account this payment, the Sarees which remained with the defendants worked to 910 and their liability has accordingly been worked out.

4. In the appeal, the first part of the finding and the eventual liability of the defendants is questioned while in the cross-objections the second part of the finding relating to the second period is questioned.

5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions on both sides it appears that there is neither merit in the appeal nor in the cross-objections.

6. Mr. Abhyankar in support of the appeal urged that upon the finding of the learned Judge that there were two distinct transactions, the claim based on the first transaction would be barred by limitation and the answer given by the trial learned Judge to the bar of limitation because of the payment of the bill by the defendants on 28th August 1965 as evidenced by Exhibit 165 is unsustainable at law. The learned counsel submitted that to the first part of the transaction Article 14 of the Limitation Act. 1963, would be attracted for this was a case of sale and the suit filed on 29-7-1966 for recovery of the amount of the price would be barred by limitation. As to the nature of the transaction, the learned counsel submits that for all purposes that deemed to be a sale between the plaintiff and the defendants the property in goods passing in favour of the purchaser, payment of price being deferred till the contingency of appropriating the goods is reached. He submits that the appreciation of the learned Judge on facts too is unsustainable.

7. In support of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document