Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.
1. There has been some discussion in this Court as to what the lower appellate court intended to find, but in our opinion the findings are perfectly clear. The appellants here were commission agents carrying on business at Karwi in the Banda district. One Munna Lal, the proprietor of a shop at Katni in the Central Provinces, had five hundred bags of grain stored at Badausa in the Banda district. On the 25th of December, 1907, the defendants acting as commission agents of behalf of Munna Lal, sold the five hundred bags of grain to the respondent at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to the rupee, and the respondent paid them Rs. 51 as earnest money. Delivery of the grain was to be given in eight days ; but Munna Lal, the owner of the grain, refused to allow the appellants to deliver it to the respondent on the ground that he had not authorized them to sell the grain at the rate at which it was sold. The learned Judge finds distinctly that the appellants were authorized by Munna Lal to sell the grain at the rate of 91/2 seers to a rupee and were not authorized to sell it, as they did, at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to a rupee. He also finds distinctly that the appellants did not inform the respondent at the time of the sale that they were not authorized to sell the grain at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to a rupee. He says :--' It follows from this finding that they untruly represented themselves to be authorized agents of Munna Lal to sell his grain at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to a rupee and are therefore liable under Section 235 of the Indian Contract Act to compensate the respondent for the damages sustained by him.' He gave the respondent a decree for Rs. 425, but refused to give him the costs spent by him in a previous suit against Munna Lal on the ground that he might have impleaded the appellants in the previous suit and so have saved the expense of the present suit. The respondent has filed cross-objections with regard to the refusal of the learned Judge to give him the costs of the previous suit. The objections were filed beyond time and the reason given for not filing them within time is unsatisfactory. We decline to consider the cross-objections.
2. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that Section 235 of the Contract Act does not apply to the case. Dr. Tej Bahadur argues that it was intended to apply only to the case of a person who represents himself to be the agent of another when in fact he has no authority from him whatever, but not to the case of a person who untruly represents the extent of the authority given to him by another. Dr. Tej Bahadur concedes that the case of Gollen v. Wright (1857) 7 E. & B. 301 on which Section 235 is obviously based, has been applied to both classes of cases in England. It seems to us clear that Section 235 was intended to apply to both classes of cases. There is no distinction in principle between the case of a man who represents that he has authority from another when he has no authority whatever, and the case of a man who represents that he has certain authority from another when he has authority of another description. In neither case can the man who makes the representation be said to be the authorized agent of the other with reference to the matter on which he has no authority. We agree also with the learned Judge of the court below that the appellauts must be taken to have untruly represented themselves to be authorized by Munna Lal to sell his grain at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to a rupee. For, as it was said in the case of Gollen v. Wright if a man makes a contract as agent, he promises that he is what he represents himself to be, and he is liable for the breach of his contract, whether or not he is aware that he is acting beyond the scope of his authority. In our opinion the decision of the court below is perfectly right, and we dismiss the appeal.