This Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.84,931.48 with further interest of Rs.79,468.06 @ 6% per annum from the date of the Suit till Judgment and thereafter @ 6% per annum till payment.

2. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for appointing defendant No.1 his authorized retail stockist for marketing the fabrics produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff supplied fabrics from time to time under 11 bills in June, 1978 aggregating to Rs.79,468.06. The goods were sent through defendant No.2 to defendant No.1 under the 10 lorry receipts issued by defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 was required to deliver the goods to defendant No.2 under the lorry receipts duly discharged by defendant No.1 as the consignee. The plaintiff handed over the lorry receipts and bills to defendant No.2.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 delivered the goods to defendant No.1 but failed to get the lorry receipts discharged when defendant No.1 took delivery of the goods against the documents of the plaintiff's banker-Central Bank of India. Defendant No.1 failed to honour the documents presented by the plaintiff's banker which were returned to the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff against defendant No.1 is for the price of the goods delivered to defendant No.1 in the aforesaid manner. The case of the plaintiff against defendant No.2 is upon their breach in the contract of carriage as also breach of trust in delivering the goods without obtaining the lorry receipts duly discharged. The plaintiff seeks to hold both the defendants jointly and severally liable for the price of the goods.

5. In his written statement defendant No.1 has denied the delivery of the goods to him. Defendant No.1 has admitted the presentment of the documents along with lorry receipts by the plaintiff's banker through State Bank of India. Defendant No.1 claims that he could not have made arrangement for the payment of the entire amount of the goods at one time and the plaintiff was not supposed to send the goods of such a big value at one time. Defendant No.1 has accepted that he was supposed to retire the documents by making payments of the bills but has contended that if the goods were delivered at some intervals of time, he would have retired the documents and made payments upon selling the goods in the market. Defendant No.1 has accordingly denied the breach of his agreement with the plaintiff by non payment of the price of the goods either jointly with defendant No.2 or severally.

6. Defendant No.1 has further claimed that later in October, 1978 he purchased the plaintiff's goods under 3 different bills and made payment of those bills. The plaintiff obtained receipts thereupon. Defendant No.1 has relied upon the 3 bills and the receipts issued by the plaintiff.

7. In its written statement defendant No.2 has admitted that in June, 1978 11 consignments of fabrics were discharged by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2. The consignments were duly delivered to defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has however denied the requirement of having them discharged by the consignee. Defendant No.2 claims to have received the goods under lorry receipts as per the terms and conditions set out in those lorry receipts. Defendant No.2 has contended that consignments sent to any named person would be delivered directly and the suit consignment was addressed to defendant No.1 by name and was hence directly delivered to defendant No.1 at the place of destination. Defendant No.2 relies upon the letter dated 26th June, 1979 in which the receipts of the goods is admitted by defendant No.1 consequent upon which it claims that defendant No.2 has fully complied with the terms of the agreement and not committed any breach thereof. It is further contended that defendant No.2 was informed not to deliver the goods except by presentation of original lorry receipts. In its written statement defendant No.2 has not produced any documents evidencing any r