JUDGMENT :- This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rupees 2.034-6-9 from the first defendant through the second defendant.

2. The plaintiff firm was carrying on commission agency business in cloth at Kanpur. The first defendant, the co-operative Union, Mallawah, district Hardoi (hereinafter called the society) had appointed the second defendant Sri Ram Chandra Pandey as their sales agent. It was stated in the written statement filed by the first defendant that the second defendant was employed in the Co-operative Union Mallawah as a salesman "on salary or commission". The second defendant purchased cloth worth Rupees 1857 15-3 from the plaintiff on credit for the first defendant and further borrowed Rupees 50 from the plaintiff for defraying the octroj duty and transport charges. Admittedly cloth was purchased from the plaintiff and was duly received by the first defendant. It was further admitted that the first defendant had paid the price of the aforesaid cloth to the second defendant and the second defendant admitted that instead of paying the amount to the plaintiff the said amount was misappropriated by the second defendant with the result that the plaintiff did not receive the price of the cloth that has been sold by him to the first defendant through the second defendant. It was alleged that the second defendant was the agent of the first defendant and cloth had been sold by the plaintiff on credit through the second defendant. The second defendant admitted that the first defendant "actually paid the amount in suit to him before the goods in suit were purchased by him; that he had spent the said "amount over the treatment of his father, who was ill; that consequently, he had taken the goods in suit from the plaintiff, on credit, in the name of defendant no. 1, along with the cash amount of Rupees 50". The first defendant while admitting the fact that the cloth worth Rupees 1857-15-3 had been received by it and its price had been paid to the second defendant further contended that the latter had no right to purchase on credit as he had been paid cash money.

3. The trial court decreed the suit as against both the defendants, but on appeal the decree of the trial court was modified and the suit was decreed only as against defendant No. 2 and was dismissed as against defendant No 1.

4. The only question for consideration before the court below was whether under the circumstances of the case the first defendant was liable for the conduct of the second defendant. It was not denied that there was "relationship of master and servant between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2". It was further contended that the first defendant had never instructed the plaintiff to sell any cloth on credit to the second defendant in the name of the first defendant and it was emphasised that the first defendant had already paid the price of the cloth purchased from the plaintiff by the second defendant.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that it could not be denied that the second defendant was a accredited agent of the first defendant and he was duly authorised to purchase cloth from the plaintiff for defendant no. 1 and in the transaction in question cloth had been sold to the first defendant through the second defendant on credit and the goods so sold had been duly received by the first defendant. It was urged that the second defendant as the agent of the first defendant was fully competent to purchase cloth on behalf of the first defendant on credit and the plaintiff who recognised the second defendant as the agent of the first defendant, had in the ordinary course of business sold cloth to the first defendant on credit through his agent the second defendant. Admittedly the second defendant was the agent of the first defendant. It appears that there were dealings between the first defendant and the plaintiff through the second defendant since several years before the transaction in dispu