Koijam Tombi Singh vs Chanambam Ibomcha Singh

This is an appeal against judgment dated 2241952 of the learned District Judge, Manipur, in Suit No. 10 of 1950 by which the plaintiffrespondent''s claim has been decreed to the �extent of Rs. 533820 with proportionate costs. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegations that there was an arrangement between the parties for which the defendant promised to procure license for collecting copper wire from the jungle and then the plaintiff was to collect copper wire from the jungle and the defendant was to buy the copper wire on cash payment. The British Government had set up telegraph poles and copper wires thereon, but later on the enemy in the last war uprooted those poles and copper wire had been thrown at various places in the jungle. The defendant got a permission from the Ranchi Military No. 21 for collecting copper wire and he gave authority to the plaintiff for doing so in the jungle and thus a joint business for collecting copper wire was undertaken by the parties.

About 450 maunds of copper wire were collected and were stocked in the custody of the plaintiff. Later on a wire was received from the Divisional Engineer, Shillong, to hand over all the copper wire to the E. S. T. and thus copper wire was taken from the godown of the plaintiff at Bishnupur. A sum of Rs. 36,01280 was claimed as price of the copper wire, but D. E. T. Shillong Division gave the reply Ex. D/L saying that no price would be paid as the collection was unauthorised. Thus the joint business came to an end according to the plaintiff arid the latter brought the present suit for recovery of Rs. 10,681100 with costs in this manner that Rs. 1500/ were alleged to have been advanced to the defendant on 751948 and Rs. 4000/ were said to have been advanced to him on 961948 and before that date Rs. 500/ were taken by the defendant on 17121947 and Rs. 4676100 were claimed as price of copper wire and a sum oj Rs. 5/ was claimed on account of coolie charge.

(2) The defendantappellant contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit and the amendment made by the plaintiff in his original plaint was invalid and illegal. According to the defendant there was a partnership business between the parties in respect of copper wire and this business was duly dissolved and there was no profit in that business due to interference by the telegraph authorities of the Government of India. As the learned District Judge decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 533820, the defendant has come to this Court in appeal.

(3) The plaintiff produced the deed Ex. P/A dated 751948 which was executed by the defendant in his favour for Rs. 1500/ vide Ex. D/D and another deed Ex. P/B dated 17121947 was also produced to show that the defendant was given Rs. 500/ as advance by the plaintiff. The third deed Ex. P/CA dated 961948 goes to establish that the defendant was advanced a third sum of Rs. 4000/ in this way that Rs. 1500/ were advanced on that day and Rs. 25007 were advanced a little earlier. The chits Ex. P/DA, Ex. P/EA and Ex. P/FA had been produced to show that the copper wire collected in the joint business was actually taken away by the Telegraph authorities under the orders of the paramount power i.e. the Government of India. These documents do go to show that the plaintiff did advance different sums to the defendant so that the latter might utilise them for collecting copper wire from the jungle at the latter''s request.

(4) Chanambam Ibomcha Singh plaintiff examined himself and he produced P. Irabant Singh, In Gulap Singh, H. Amu Singh and Rameswar Sarma witnesses and their evidence also goes to establish that the defendant was really advanced different sums of money mentioned above and the latter executed deeds Ex. P/A, Ex. P/B and Ex. P/CA in favour of the plaintiff.

(5) The defendant examined himself and he produced Ch. Khagendra Singh, W. Bacha Singh, M. Nadiachand Singh and L. Pisak Singh and he relied on the handnote dated 731948 Ex. D/B as well as the letter dated 29121947 Ex. D/A by which permission was given for the collection of iron scraps. The deed Ex. D/C dated 751948 has been relied upon to show that there was a partnership business for collection of copper wire and iron scraps. The letters dated 1711948 Ex. D/D, dated 1141948 Ex. D/E, dated 421948 Ex. D/F, dated 461948 Ex. D/G, dated 841949 Ex. D/H and dated 331949 Ex. D/L have been produced to show that the work had to be given up because the copper wire was confiscated by the paramount authority. The bill Ex. D/I for Rs. 36,01280 was submitted on account of the price of the copper wire but no payment was made and the telegrams Ex. D/J and Ex. D/K show that the parties were asked to hand over the copper wire to the telegraph authorities on the ground that collection made by them was unauthorised.

(6) The first contention put forward by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the plaintiff could not be given a decree in this suit because the deeds Ex. P/A, Ex. P/B and Ex. P/C as well as Ex. D/B were unregistered. According to the appellant''s contention the rules regarding registration in force in Manipur at that time were as follows:

The following documents must be registered:

(a) Homestead lands.

(b) Culturable lands or crops.

(c) Cattle and ponies.

Deeds of a cash value of more than Rs. 15/.

Transfers of all fisheries, ferries, salt wells and grass Mahals.

Agreements of hypothecation of crops of more than 12 pots of Dhan.

Clause 1B lays down an exemption from the operation of the registration rules. It provides that advances by contractors ''and others'' in cases where advances are given to Dafadars, labourers or other employees for the performance of any specific work would be exempted from the operation of the registration rules. The evidence to which I have already referred above, shows that the plaintiff had advanced different sums to the extent of Rs. 4500/to the defendant for carrying on specific work, viz., of removing copper wire from the jungle in accordance with the terms of. the contract between the parties which was reduced to writing, vide Ex. D/C. Even if it be assumed that this money was invested in the partnership business by the defendant as his capital after taking advances from the plaintiff, the latter would not be debarred from bringing the present suit on the ground that the suit had been instituted on the basis of isolated items relating to the partnership business in which any number of transactions had been carried out.

His Lordship Madhavan Nair J. in ''Uthira rReddiar v. Muthi Reddiar'', AIR 1927 Mad 68 (A), held that one partner can sue another for advances made by him not to the partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital. In view of this ruling

I think the present plaintiff could maintain this suit on account of advances which had been made by him to the defendant and these sums were utilised by the defendant as his capital in the partnership business.

In view of the exemption provided in the Manipur registration rule quoted above, I think the documents Ex. P/A, Ex. P/B and Ex. P/C did not require registration as they related to advances made by the plaintiff to the defendant who was to carry out specific work in accordance with the contract between the parties. As the deed Ex. P/A related to profits on account of partnership business, I think no decree can properly be passed in favour of the plaintiff regarding this sum unless entire partnership accounts are gone through, but the entire partnership accounts have not been produced in this case. Regarding the other 3 items of Rs. 500/, Rs. 2500/ and Rs. 1500/ the position is quite clear and it is that these sums were advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and the latter utilised these sums as capital in the partnership business and so I am definitely of opinion that the plaintiff could be awarded a decree for the abovementioned sum in the present suit.

(7) The second contention put forward by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the plaintiff could not be allowed any decree in this case because the entire business collapsed not on account of default of the defendant but because the paramount authority, viz., the Government of India held that the collection of copper wire by the parties was unauthorised and unlawful and reliance has been placed on � ''Gundayya v. Subbaya'', AIR 1927 Mad 89 (B); ''Kunjilal Monohardas v. Durga Prasad Debiprosad'', AIR 1920 Cal 1021 (C) and ''Ramkumar Agarwalla v. P. C. Roy and Co. (India) Ltd.'', AIR 1952 Cal 397 (D). These rulings lay down that Court must find that there was any intention and any purpose for entering into the contract and that purpose and intention have been frustrated by occurrence of a subsequent event and the Court cannot reform a contract on equitable principles.

It has been admitted before me by the learned counsel of the parties at the time of argument that the accounts given by the learned District Judge in his judgment are not correct and I think in view of the rulings cited above the plaintiff could not properly be allowed any sum on account of his profit in the partnership business unless the entire account of the partnership business has been gone through. I think the defendant''s contention on this point has considerable force and the plaintiff cannot properly be allowed a decree for any sum regarding profits or regarding price of copper wire collected by the parties. But there can be no valid ground for disallowing the plaintiff the decree for sums which have been advanced by him to the defendant to be used by the latter as his capital in the partnership business for carrying out specific work and I think the plaintiff was entitled to get decree for Rs. 4500/ only on the basis of Ex. P/B, Ex. P/CA and the rest of the plaintiff''s claim fails and should be dismissed.

(8) The result is that this appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the learned District Judge is modified to this extent that the plaintiff''s claim is decreed for Rs. 4500/ only and the rest of his claim is dismissed. The parties will get and pay cost according to their success and failure in both the Courts.

Decree modified.