Case: Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors

2. The State of Bihar filed the suit against Purneshwari Rice Mills, respondent No.2 Nand Gopal Prasad Respondent No.3 and Nand Kishore Prasad the appellant claiming a sum of Rs.The State alleged that defendants 2 and 3 Nand Gopal Prasad and Nand Kishore Prasad respondent No.3 and the appellant respectively were lessees of Purneshwari Rice Mills and worked as purchasing and milling agents of the State of Bihar during the years49 under the grain supply scheme. The defendants were to supply rice extracted from the paddy supplied to them on behalf of the State at such rates of extraction as might be fixed by the prescribed authority. An agreement dated 3 March, 1948 was entered into between the appellant Nand Kishore Prasad and the respondent Nand Gopal Prasad on the one hand and the State on the other.3. The State also alleged that the defendants were supplied with 85114 maunds 36 seers and 8 chittacks of paddy between the month of January 1948 and the month of January, 1949. The defendants, according to the State, should have supplied to the plaintiff 53477 maunds 7 seers of rice but the defendants supplied only 48167 maunds and 20 seers of rice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the appellant and the respondents Nand Gopal Prasad were liable to pay the price of the balance 5399 maunds and 20 seers of rice.4. The State further alleged that the bills of milling and other charges submitted by the defendants were finalised in October, 1953 and on accounting a sum ofwas found to be due. The State alleged in the plaint that a sum ofThe further claim in the plaint was on account of gunny bags supplied to the defendants. It was alleged that 989989 new bags and 21514" once used (sic) bags were supplied to the defendants during the period9. The defendants were found to leave 21355 new bags, 5304 "once used" (sic) bags and 6832 rotten bags. The value of bags lying with the defendants was alleged by the plaintiff State to be Rs.The State claimed the said sum and interest thereon.

Reasoning: 13. The High Court said that the claims of either side prior to January, 1948 had to be left out of the purview of the suit on the pleadings of the parties. Yet the High Court allowed the defendants claim for the balance of old paddy ofThe appellant challenged this finding of the High Court on two grounds. First, it was said that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State. Second, if the claim of the State forwere to be considered the deductions for that period in favour of the appellant should have been considered and allowed.14. The appellant in the written statement stated that the defendants received from the State 84174 maunds 16 seers 8 chittaks of paddy in 1948 and 940 maunds 20 seers in 1949. The total was 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks.The plaintiffs witness Nagendra Narain Singh said that the defendants were supplied in all a total of 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks of paddy for milling purpose. The plaintiffs witness further stated that the defendants supplied 48167 maunds 20 seers of rice. According to the plaintiff State the defendants should have supplied 53477 maunds 7 seers. The plaintiffs witness also stated that the rice and paddy account in the suit related to the period49 though some paddy admittedly received by the defendants in the earlier year was carried forward to the account of the yearThe amount so carried forward was 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy as balance from the previous year. By the periodis meant the calendar year 1948 and by the periodis meant the calendar year 1949. Therefore on the evidence of the plaintiffs witness 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy were carried forward from a period prior to the year 1948. This quantity of 429 maunds 19 seers should therefore be deducted from 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks. The figure will be 84685 maunds 17 seers 8 chittaks.15. Leaving aside 17 seers 8 chittaks the round figure of 84685 maunds would be the amount of paddy delivered by the State. The rate of extraction of rice was alleged in the plaint to be 60 to 65 per cent. The trial Court on the evidence found that the rate of extraction of rice from paddy according to Exhibit 2 was 62 per cent. On that extraction rate of 62 per cent 84685 maunds would yield 52452 maunds of rice. The defendants delivered 48167 maunds. The balance quantity of 4285 maunds will be due by the defendants to the State. The High Court allowed the State value for 5309 maunds 27 seers of rice not delivered by the defendants to the State. That claim is set aside. Instead the State will be entitled to the value of 4285 maunds of rice not delivered by the appellant to the defendant No.3 and the State.16. The High Court was wrong in disallowing wholly the amounts which had been given to the defendants by the trial Court. Exhibitshows the various charges to which defendants No.3 was entitled. Exhibit E is the agreement between various milling agents and the State showing the various charges of the milling agents to which they were entitled to. The trial Court gave the defendants these charges. The High Court was wrong in disallowing the claims on account of cartage, shrinkage, difference in milling charges, stacking charges, commission charges, ferry charges. Whatever charges were payable to the defendants in that respect between January 1948 and January 1949 to which period the plaintiffs claim is limited should go to the credit of the defendants.17. The decree of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be dealt with in the light of the observations indicated hereinabove. The High Court will determine the amounts payable by the plaintiff State to the appellant and also by the appellant and defendant No.3 to the State.18. The High Court gave a decree in favour of the Stae and also against Purneshwari Rice Mill. Purneshwari Rice Mill is the lessor of the rice mill. The defendants viz., the appellant and respondent No.3 were lessees from Purneshwari Rice Mill.The lessors were not a party to the agreement with the State upon which the State filed the suit. The lesssor were not the purchasing and milling agents. There is no pleading making Purneshwari Rice Mill liable in respect of supply of rice. It would be strange to hold that the lessor were liable for the business of the lessees. The lease between the Purneshwari Rice Mill and the defendants shows that the business to be carried on by the lessees is that of the lessees and the lesor is not engaged in that business. Therefore, the decree against Purneshwari Rice Mill is unjustified and set aside.