JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These connected appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of goods in specie or in the alternative for damages.

2. The suit (No.297 of 1950) was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh, on 20-7-50 by Chandmal against Hazarimal, Sohanlal, Bhanwarlal and Surajmal. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeals are these. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were partners in a partnership firm Gauri Shankar Sohanlal of Karanpur which had closed its business. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased 176 bags of gur weighing 352 mds. on Chait Sudi 13, Smt. 2002 through this firm of the defendants and kept there for sale, that the defendants sent an account of their dealings with the plaintiff upto Kartik Sudi 1, Smt. 2002 showing a credit balance of Rs. 9266-4-6 in his favour, that the price of gur was debited to him in this account, but that it had not been sold by the date upto which the account was sent and that on 15-6-46 the plaintiff served a notice on the defendants (asking them to pay the price of the gur?). On that date the market rate of gur was Rs. 13/-per maund and the price of 352 mds. of gur had been claimed at that rate in the plaint. Further it was alleged that the plaintiff asked the defendants several times (to pay the price of the gur or return it in specie?), but they kept on asking for time and finally on 1-7-50 defendants Nos. 1 to 3 made a refusal and hence the suit was being instituted. Hazarimal and Bhanwarlal filed a written statement in which they asserted that they were not partners of the firm Gauri Shankar Sohanlal and had nothing to do with the transactions in suit. They denied all the allegations made in the plaint. Hazarimal died during the pendency of the suit and Dhanraj, Champalal, Jiwanmal and Shiv Bhagwan were impleaded as his legal representatives. These legal representatives filed a written statement similar to that filed by Hazarimal and Bhanwarlal.

3. Sohanlal was served, but he did not appear to contest the suit. The suit proceeded ex parte against him.

4. Surajmal filed a separate written statement. He admitted that he was a partner of the firm Gauri Shankar Sohanlal. He also admitted that this firm purchased 176 bags of gur on behalf of the plaintiff and stored it, that the gur was debited to the plaintiff, that the account of transactions up to Kartik Sudi 1, Smt. 2002 was sent by the firm to the plaintiff in which the price of the gur was debited to him and that this account showed a credit balance of Rs. 9266-4-6 in his favour and that the gur had not been sold till then. He asserted however that the gur was sold in accordance with the instructions of the plaintiff at Rs. 10-2-0 per maund for 3452-6-6. Further he alleged that the firm Gauri Shankar Sohanlal carried on business at Sri Ganganagar also and that Chand Mal entered into transactions through the agency of the firm at Ganganagar in which he incurred losses as a result of which Chandmal owed a sum of Rs. 7212-12-9 to the firm.

5. One Shri Suleman a clerk of the Civil Judges Court was appointed as guardian ad litem of Shiv Bhagwan and he filed a written statement on his behalf denying his liability. He did not admit any of the allegations made in the plaint and asserted that he had no knowledge of the transactions in suit.

6. Chandmal died during the pendency of the suit and his son Gulab Chand Was impleaded as a plaintiff in his place.

7. The following are the relevant issues framed by the trial court: —

Issue No. 2.—Is the plaintiff entitled to the price of 352 mds. of gur at Rs. 13/- per maund? Issue No. 4.—Did the plaintiff get the amount due to him as price of gur adjusted against his account with the Ganganagar firm? Issue No.6—Are Bhanwarlal and the legal representatives of the Hazarimal liable?

The trial court held that the gur was sold for Rs. 3452-6-6 at Rs. 10-2-0 per maund as alleged by the defendants. It held that this amount was adjusted against losses incurred by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document