Proof of authority, dishonoured cheques, and contractual interest supported recovery; double liability against the fourth defendant was rejected.

A power of attorney lacking the statutory presumption had to be proved through other admissible evidence, and the plaintiff satisfied that burden by producing the original minutes book recording the board's authorisation and by showing that the signatory was competent to verify the plaint. Books of account alone were insufficient to fasten liability, but dishonoured cheques supporting the admitted dues established liability of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, together with contractual interest at 18% per annum from the date of supply until realisation. No decree could be passed against defendant No. 4 because he had already paid the price to the other defendants, and double recovery was impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff had proved its authority to institute the suit and to sign and verify the plaint; (ii) whether the plaintiff had proved the liability of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for the suit amount and the corresponding entitlement to interest; and (iii) whether any decree could be passed against defendant No. 4.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff had proved its authority to institute the suit and to sign and verify the plaint.

Analysis: The power of attorney relied upon was not executed in the manner contemplated by the statutory presumption relating to authenticated powers of attorney, and therefore no presumption of due execution arose. The plaintiff, however, produced the original minutes book containing the board resolution approving the draft power of attorney. The minutes book was treated as evidence of the proceedings recorded therein, and the plaintiff also established that the signatory was a principal officer competent to sign and verify the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaintiff proved valid authority to institute the suit and to sign and verify the plaint.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff had proved the liability of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for the suit amount and the corresponding entitlement to interest.

Analysis: Entries in books of account, even if supported by copies, were held insufficient by themselves to fasten liability. The claim against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was, however, supported by the dishonoured cheques issued towards the admitted amount due, which were treated as evidence of indebtedness. On the question of interest, the dealer agreement provided for interest at 1.5% per mensem, i.e. 18% per annum.

Conclusion: Liability of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for Rs. 1,06,000 was proved, and the plaintiff was entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of supply and thereafter till realisation.

Issue (iii): whether any decree could be passed against defendant No. 4.

Analysis: Defendant No. 4 had already paid the price of the tractor to defendants Nos. 1 to 3, and making him pay again would amount to double recovery for the same transaction. The plaintiff abandoned this claim during arguments.

Conclusion: No decree was passed against defendant No. 4.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded only against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for the principal sum with interest, while the claim against defendant No. 4 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney not covered by the statutory presumption must be proved by other admissible evidence, board resolutions authorising litigation may be proved through the original minutes book, and books of account alone do not establish liability without independent supporting proof.

---