Case: Chhitarmal Vs. M/S. Shah Pannalal Chandulal

. The petitioner commenced on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer an action against the respondents claiming a decree for Rs. 10, 665 and for rendition of accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased by him through the agency of the respondents. The petitioner claimed that 104 bales of cotton purchased by him were sold by the respondents as his agents on May 14, 1948 for Rs. 27, 267/13/6 and without settling the account the respondents delivered towards that amount a demand draft for Rs. 11, 000 which was encashed and four cheques of the aggregate value of Rs. 13, 000 which because of lack of arrangement with the respondents bankers were not encashed, and the petitioner on that account was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs. 10, 665 being the amount due on the foot of dishonoured cheques and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum between July 2, 1947 to July 1, 1951, less Rs. 4, 000 subsequently received by him. The petitioner also claimed a decree for the balance of the price. after giving credit for commission, dalali and godown charges incurred by the respondents as his agents and as he was not in a "position to know" the amounts due to or disbursed by the respondents, he claimed a decree for rendition of account. The subject-matter of the suit was, therefore, a claim for Rs. 10, 665 due to the petitioner on a cause of action arising on cheques dishonoured and a claim for the balance of the price due as may be ascertained on taking accounts3. The trial Court passed a decree directing that account be taken for ascertaining the amount due in respect of the entire transaction of 104 bales and for taking accounts appointed a Commissioner. The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit, holding that the transactions in respect of which the claim was made by the petitioner were those of an unregistered firm constituted by the petitioner and another person named Duli Chand and the suit was barred because the firm was not registered. An application filed by the petitioner for certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court4. The judgment of the High Court proceeds entirely upon appre- ciation of evidence and on the findings recorded the petitioners suit must stand dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
In our view the contention raised by the petitioner under either head has no substanceThe expression "property" is not defined in the Code, but having regard to the use of the expression "amount" it would apparently include money. But the property respecting which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute. If in a proposed appeal there is no claim or question raised respecting property other than the subject-matter, cl. (a) will apply : if there is involved in the appeal a claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20, 000 in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute cl. (b) will apply6. In the present case the subject-matter in dispute was a claim for money. A part of that claim was definite and the rest was to be ascertained on taking accounts. The judgment did not involve any claim or question relating to property in addition to or other than the subject-matter in dispute of the value of Rs. 20, 000. It was admitted by the petitioner in his plaint that the bales of cotton were sold by the respondents as his agents. The right of the respondents to sell the bales was not in dispute. what was challenged was the right of the respondents to retain the price received by them. It cannot be said that a judgment dealing with a claim to money alleged to be due from an agent for price of property belonging to the principal sold by the agent either directly or indirectly involves a claim or question respecting property which is sold7. Nor does the alternative ground assist the petitioner. It is true that by his petition the petitioner claims restoration of the decree of the Trial Court, and by adding interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioners claim as awarded under the report of the Commissioner, the claim of the petitioner on appeal exceeds Rs. 20, 000. But this is still the subject-matter in dispute the Judgment does not involve any claim or question respecting property in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the suit.