Skip to content


Suppayya Pattar Alias Suppayya Iyer Vs. Dawood Haji Ahmad Sait and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1025(2); 32Ind.Cas.763
AppellantSuppayya Pattar Alias Suppayya Iyer
RespondentDawood Haji Ahmad Sait and ors.
Cases Referred and Ghasiram v. Raja Mohan Bikram Sha
Excerpt:
principal and agent - agent borrowing without authority--principal, liability of. - - 1. we are satisfied that the agent ibrahim had no authority to borrow money for making remittances to his principal......favour or as otherwise received by him or his servant mustappa? what is the total amount of the sums so received?2. whether the plaintiff in dealing with ibrahim intended to deal with him as cassim's agent or intended to hold ibrahim himself independently liable on the dealings?2. the finding will be submitted on the evidence on record within six weeks from the date of receipt of papers. ten days will be allowed for filing objections.3. [the subordinate judge returned the finding on the first issue that all sums mentioned on the credit side of exhibit b except a sum of rs. 2,500 and odd were received by cassim and that they amounted to rs. 49,000 and odd. the sub-judge also found that what had been remitted by the agent to the principal or had been otherwise recovered by him was less.....
Judgment:

1. We are satisfied that the agent Ibrahim had no authority to borrow money for making remittances to his principal. The only ground on which the plaintiff could succeed is that, as decided in the English and Indian cases quoted by the appellant's learned Vakil, viz., Reid v. Rigby (1894) 2 Q.B.D. 40, Bannatyne v. MacIver (1906) 1 K.B. 103, Reversion Fund and Insurance Company Limited v. Maison Cosway Limited (1913) 1 K.B. 364, Marsh v. Keating (1834) 1 Bing 198; 1 Scott. 5, Heramba Chandra Pal Chowdhury v. Kasi Nath 1 C.L.J. 199 and Ghasiram v. Raja Mohan Bikram Sha 6 C.L.J. 639, where the principal has been benefited by the money borrowed by the unauthorised agent from the plaintiff, either by the principal having received the money directly or by its having been spent in meeting his legal liabilities, the principal is equitably bound to return to plaintiff the said money to the extent that he has derived benefit therefrom. Before dealing with this question of law in detail and before disposing of this appeal finally we think it advisable to call for definite findings on the following questions:

1. Were all or any of the sums mentioned in the credit side of the account, Exhibit B, received by Cassim Haji, either as sent by hundi drawn in his favour or as otherwise received by him or his servant Mustappa? What is the total amount of the sums so received?

2. Whether the plaintiff in dealing with Ibrahim intended to deal with him as Cassim's agent or intended to hold Ibrahim himself independently liable on the dealings?

2. The finding will be submitted on the evidence on record within six weeks from the date of receipt of papers. Ten days will be allowed for filing objections.

3. [The Subordinate Judge returned the Finding on the first issue that all sums mentioned on the credit side of Exhibit B except a sum of Rs. 2,500 and odd were received by Cassim and that they amounted to Rs. 49,000 and odd. The Sub-Judge also found that what had been remitted by the agent to the principal or had been otherwise recovered by him was less than the amount shown on the debit side of Exhibit B, i.e., the amount repaid by the agent to the plaintiff. On the 2nd issue he found from the plaintiff's accounts that the plaintiff was dealing with Ibrahim as agent of Cassim].


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //