Subrahmania Aiyar, J.
1. Hera I am asked to give a decree only for Rs. 63 being the amount claimed as due to the plaintiff out of what he had paid as the defendant's agent to third parties on account of difference under waggering contracts entered into with them by the defendant through the plaintiff.
2. Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act relied on on behalf of the defendatn does not bar such a claim. Whether the view of Brett M.R. or that of Bowen and Fry, L.J.J., in Read v. Anderson L.R. 13 Q.B. 779 is the correct view with reference to the precise question on which the learned Judges differed it is not necessary here to go into since the question of revocation was raised here. Parakh Govardhan Bhai Hari Bhai v. Ransoordoss Dulabhdoss 12 B.H.C.R. 51 and Shibhao Mal v. Lakshman Das I.L.R. 23 A. 165 are clearly in favour of the view that Section of the Indian Contract Act Cannot be construed as covering a claim like the present and Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand I.L.r. 25 A. 639 in so far as it goes points to the view that that conslusion is right. Doshi Talakshi v. Shah Ujamsi Valsi I.R.R. 24 B. 227 is a decision under the Bombay Act which differs widely in its language from Section 30, Indian Contract Act, and the reasoning of the learned Judges clearly implies that but for the wide provisions of the specific enactment they were considering, the decision would have been different.
3. I therefore modify the decree of the lower Court by awarding to the plaintiff Rs. 63-14-9 with interest from the date of plaint to date of payment at six per cent. per annum and proportionate costs.