Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 130
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha
NANDLAL SHIOKARAN – Appellant
Versus
RAJARAM SHIOKARAN – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 170 of 1952
Decided on : 18-11-1952
G R Mudholkar, J N Chandurkar, Advocates
An agent having an interest in the contract entered on behalf of the principal is entitled to sue in his own name.
Headnote:
Entitlement - Partner's Suit - Plaintiff suing in his own name was entitled to maintain the suit
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for not paying the amount received from a pleader, claiming that the Defendant was bound to pay the money into the hands of the Plaintiff as his agent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff, acting as the agent of his firm, was entitled to sue in his own name without joining the co-partners as Plaintiffs, as the benefit of the contract would result to the partnership firm.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Plaintiff, suing in his own name, was entitled to maintain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that an agent having an interest in the contract which he has entered on behalf of his principal is entitled to sue in his own name.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Court below was set aside and the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff with costs throughout.
Sinha, C J—This is a Plaintiff's application in revision against the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Amravati dismissing the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Plaintiff alone was not entitled to maintain the suit.
2. It appears that the amount claimed in this suit, namely, Rs. 806/15/- had been lying in deposit with Shri V.V. Bapat, pleader, to the credit of the firm ''Nandlal Rajaram'' of which the Plaintiff is the managing partner. The Plaintiff deputed the Defendant to fetch that amount from the aforesaid pleader. On receiving the amount from the pleader, the Plaintiff's case is, the Defendant did not pay the amount to the Plaintiff. Hence this suit.
3. The defence was that the Defendant was a partner along with the Plaintiff in the firm, which was a joint family firm run in the name of ''Nandlal Rajaram'', that the Defendant on receiving the amount from the pleader aforesaid credited it in the accounts of the firm and that the suit was bad because the suit should have been instituted in the name or on behalf of the firm.
4. The Court below has negatived the defence that the Defendant was a member of the firm ''Nandlal Rajaram''. It also held that the Defendant brought the amount from the pleader aforesaid at the instance of the Plaintiff, but dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff alone was not entitled to sue. Hence this application in revision.
5. The only question in controversy between the parties, therefore, is whether the Plaintiff suing in his own name was entitled to maintain the suit. The Court below has relied upon a decision of a Bench of the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court in - Ralliram Shewaram v. Budhuram Parmanand,1925 AIR(Sind) 181 which lays down that a suit cannot be maintained by one only of the partners of a firm or by one of the joint promisees in respect of a cause of action which has accrued to all jointly. The decision relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad High Court - Dular Chand v. Balram Das and - Tmmamuddin v. Liladhar.
In this Court the learned Counsel for the non-Applicant-Defendant has also relied upon two decisions, one of the Calcutta High Court in - Ramsebuk v. Ramlall Koondoo, 1881 6 ILR(Cal) 815 and of the Bombay High Court in - Motilal Bechardas v. Ghela Bhai Hariram in support of his contention that under the Contract Act it is all the joint promisees who must enforce the contract, and not one of them. But it must be remembered that the present case is distinguishable from those cases in so far as it is the Plaintiff's case that it was the Plaintiff who deputed the Defendant to get the money. So it was a promise made not to the firm as such but to the Plaintiff as an individual, who was of course acting on behalf of the firm. Therefore the Defendant was bound to pay the money into the hands of the Plaintiff whose agent he was.
6. The decision of the Court below is contrary to the decision in - Rajendrasingh v. Ibrahim, 1933 AIR(Nag) 221, which is a decision of a Single Judge of the Judicial Commissioner's Court. This decision is based on a Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in - Kapurji Magniram v. Panaji Devichand, 1929 AIR(Bom) 359 which laid it down that a partner with whom a contract had been personally made was entitled to sue upon that contract in his own name without joining the co-partners as Plaintiffs, although the benefit of the contract would result to the partnership firm. This decision of the Bombay High Court was itself based upon a very old decision of the Privy Council in the case of - Agacio v. Forbes,1861 14 MooPC 160. This decision is based on the well recognized rule that an agent having an interest in the contract which he has entered on behalf of his principal is entitled to sue in his own name.
The Plaintiff in the instant case was acting as the agent of his firm when he entered into the arrangement with the Defendant that the latter should fetch the amount from the pleader with whom it was lying in
