The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, specifically regarding sub-agents' responsibilities and the principle of contracting parties' liability.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The Subordinate Judge mistaken in saying that Exhibits V Series VI Series, VII Series and VIII Series mention Ralli Brothers as the other contracting party they mention Messrs. Agence Ralli Freres" winch 1 take to mean " The Agents of Ralli Brothers."

2. Probably they mean the Agents at Pondicherry of whom the 1st defendant alleges that he is only a sub-agent (para-graph 6).

3. The lower Courts finding on the 4th issue cannot be accepted as it is vitiated by its misreading of these documents he is requested to give a revised finding after considering the question whether he is merely a sub-agent of the Pondicherry Agency and whether, if the contract was with the Pondicherry Agency, the 1st defendant will evidence (if any) on the record as to the 1st defendants undertaking to be personally liable before coming to his conclusions. 4. He will also give a finding on the 3rd issue.

4. The time for the submission of the finding will be one month from the date of the receipt of the records Seven days will be allowed for filing objections in compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Suboridante Judge of Tanjore submitted the following

FINDINGS.--The above suit has been remanded for a revised finding on the evidence on record on the 4th point and for a finding on the 3rd point.

2. 4th point--First defendant in paragraph 6 of his written statement says that he is merely the sub-agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Patukota. In his deposition as his witness, he swears that he was appointed sub-agent at Patukota by the chief agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry. Exhibit I is a letter written by one of plaintiffs Kariasthans apparently to the 1st defendant, in which he is described as the sub-agent of messrs. Ralli Brothersat Patukota. Exhibits Viii and oracle are day book and ledger maintained by the 1st Patukota by the chief agent of Messrs. Ralli brothers at Patukota. Exhibits VIII and VIIa are day-book and ledger maintained by the 1st described as the sub-agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothersat Patukota. Exhibits VIII and VTTT are day-book and ledger maintained by the 1st defendant. They are described as the accounts of Messrs. Ralli Brothers sub agency at Pattukota. These documents corroborate 1st defendants statement that he is only a sub-agent. I hold, therefore that 1st defendant was only a sub-agent appointed by the chief agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry.

3. Exhibits V, Va and Vb are the sale memos relating to the contracts in question. They were executed by the 2nd defendant (alleged agent of the plaintiff) to the agent of messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry Exhibits VII VIIa and VIIb are memos of accounts relating to the said contracts" and it is stated in them that they are accounts of 2nd defendant with the agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at. Pondicherry. It is, therefore, clear that the agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry was in writing made the contracting party and that the contracts in question were made" directly in his name.

4. The plaintiffs Pleader here has not pointed out to mo any authority to show that in the circumstances of the ease, 1st defendant is personally liable for the plaint claim. He merely relies on the statement of the plaintiff made in his deposition as his 1st witness that he looked to 1st defendant for payment of the money due in respect of these contracts. These contracts were entered into, not by the plaintiff personally, but by the 2nd defendant. In the plaintiffs accounts, Exhibits A" Series, no mention is made of 1st defendants name in any place, but it is shown in them, that the dealings are with Messrs. Ralli Brothers, Patukota. The plaintiffs statement in the light of documents in the ease appears improbable and .1 do not believe it. I hold that the contracts in question were with the agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry and that the 1st defendant did not undertake to he personally liable to the plaintiff for th