1. This is an application for revision against an order passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, at Agra, dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit for recovery of a certain sum of money against the husband and decreeing it against the wife only. The wife has since died, and the only person now interested in this litigation is the husband, one Mr. Purcell. He is employed in the Bast Indian Bail-way, and was stationed at Tundla during the time to which the dealings in question in this case relate. It appears that, on the 2nd June 1934, Mrs. Purcell executed a document which is referred to by the lower Court as a promissory note. It recites that a sum of Rs. 600 was found due to the plaintiff in respect of grocery account from 10th October 1933 to 12th March 1934. It also mentions that the vouchers, under which, presumably, the grocery articles had been supplied by the plaintiff, were returned by him. Interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per mensem was stipulated in the document. The plaintiff instituted the suit which has given rise to this revision for recovery of a certain sum of money due under the aforesaid document, and impleaded Mr. and Mrs. Purcell. Mr. Purcell pleaded that he was not liable under the note executed by Mrs. Purcell and that he had never purchased anything from the plaintiff. His plea found favour with the lower Court which, as already stated, dismissed the plaintiff's claim against him and decreed it against the wife.
2. In revision it is contended that a wife has implied authority to pledge the credit of her husband for necessaries of life, and that the sum due to the plaintiff represents the price of articles of grocery supplied by the plaintiff for household purposes of the defendants, who lived together as husband and wife. The learned Judge of the Court below does not appear to have appreciated the points which were in controversy between the parties. As between the plaintiff and Mr. Purcell several questions of law and fact arise. If the sum acknowledged to be due to the plaintiff by Mrs. Purcell on 2nd June 1934 represented the price of household articles intended for the family consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Purcell, and if they can be considered to be necessary for persons in the position of life occupied by the defendants, the Court may well infer that the wife had authority to bind the husband. Accordingly I remit the following issues to the lower Court for determination: (1) Whether the sum of Rs. 600, referred to in the document dated 2nd June 1934, was due to the plaintiff in respect of necessaries suited to the style of living of Mr. and Mrs. Purcell. (2) Whether Mr. and Mrs. Purcell lived together as husband and wife, and the latter managed the household affairs. (3) Whether, in all the circumstances appearing in evidence, it is reasonable to infer that Mrs. Purcell had express or implied authority to pledge the credit of her husband for necessaries of life suited to their style of living.
3. Parties shall be at liberty to adduce evidence on these issues. Findings shall be returned within two months. Ten days shall be allowed for objections on receipt of the findings.