TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (12) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase to the date of suit. In addition, the respondent firm claimed interest from the date of suit to the date of realization. It is the respondent firm's case that the tobacco weighed 28,196 pounds and that the appellant firm purchased it by agreeing to pay its price at 8 annas per pound. Further according to the respondent-firm the appellant firm agreed to pay interest on the amount at 9% per annum. The appellant-firm denied having purchased 112 bales of tobacco from the respondent-firm and denied also having agreed to pay its price at annas per pound or at any other rate. They also denied the existence of any agreement to pay any interest. According to the appellant-firm in May, 1946 it secured a contract to supply to the Russian Government 3,000 bales of inferior tobacco at the rate of 8 annas per pound. One Kottamasu Venkateswarlu (who was distantly'related to the partners of the appellant firm) was managing partner of the respondent firm. This firm had some inferior tobacco and Venketashswarlu pressed the appellant-firm to take over 112 bales of the tobacco from it and tender them towards the contract with the Russian Government saying that the appellent-firm ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not entitled either to the alleged price or to any interest. The appellant-firm further contended that Mittapalli Abbayya ceased to be a Partner of the firm since the vear 1942 because as a result of a partition between Abbayya and his son-., Abbayya's interest in the appellant-firm fell to the share of one of his sons, Kotilingam. In consequence of the plea taken by the appellant-firm that the suit was not tenable the respondentfirm amended the plaint with the leave of the court on December 27, 1949 by describing the plaintiff as ""Messrs. Thondepu Ramaswami & Co., represented by Suryanarayana Garu receiver appointed in O.S. 275 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur" in place of the original "I. Suryanarayana Garu, Receiver appointed in O.S. 275 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur". Thereupon the appellant-firm filed an amended written statement in which it contended that the amendment was made long after the period of limitation and that it does not cure the initial defect in the suit of having been filed by a person other than the one who was entitled to institute a suit and that consequently the suit was barred by limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l case because the reasons given by the High Court for holding that the transaction was a sale are quite different from those given by the trial court and in fact one of the reasons given by the High Court proceeds on a view of an important piece of evidence-which is diametrically opposite to that expressed by the trial court. Mr. Ringanadham 'Chetty pointed out that in support of its claim the respondent-firm relied upon two entries in its account books Exs. A-13 and A-14, that these entries were not relied tin by the trial court, but the High Court has without giving any reason for regarding them as genuine acted upon them. What the trial court has said in para 14 of its judgment is as follows : "'In order to establish the sale of 122 bales of flue cured virginia tobacco strips,, Ramaswami relies on certain entries in the account books of his firm. Exhibit A-13 is the katha on page 27 of the day book of Thondepu Ramaswami & Co., containing an entry in respect of 112 bales weighing 28, 196 pounds at Re-0-8-0 per pound and debiting a sum of Rs. 14,098/-. The words "'Re. 0-8-0 per pound" are contai- ned in the third line of the entry. The words "112 bales weighing 28.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thondepu Ramaswami & Co. under date 5-6-1946 wherein a sum of Rs. 14,098 is debited to the defendant firm in respect of 112 bales of tobacco weighing 286196 pounds at 8 annas per pound. Though the figures "Rs. 14,098" were written in a different ink from the rest of the entry this is not a suspicious circumstance because the rest of the entry which is in the same ink and which is written in a normal manner contains reference to the sale of 28,196 pounds at 8 annas per pound. The resultant total is entered in the column on the right hand side as Rs. 14,098. It may be that the figure of Rs. 14 098 was entered a: little later before the accounts for the day were closed. Exhibit A-14 is the corresponding ledger of Thondepu Ramaswami & Co. and the entries in the day book are duly incorporated in the ledger." Then later on the High Court has observed "At the same time the entries in the regularly kept books of the plaintiff firm cannot be thrown overboard particularly when no challenge was made of their genuineness." The High Court has also stated : "It is apparent from Exhibit A-23 that the defendant firm was shown to be a debtor not merely with respect to Rs. 14,098 the pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us that the courts were closed on June 5, 1949 and the suit was filed on the day on which they reopened. It would, therefore, be within time if it was properly constituted on the date on which it was filed. In Jagat Parini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Chaki ((1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 305) which is the leading case on the point it was held by the Calcutta High Court that a court must authorise a Receiver to sue in his own name and a Receiver who is authorised to sue though not expressly in his own name, may do so by virtue of his appointment with full powers under s. 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882). In coming to this conclusion the learned judges pointed out that though, the object and purpose of the appointment of a Receiver may be generally stated to be the Preservation of the subject-matter of the litigation pending judicial determination of the rights of the parties it does not necessarily follow that if he is authorised to sue, he cannot sue in his own name. Then the learned judges pointed out :- ,,Though he is in one sense a custodian of the property of the person, whom in certain respects he is made to supplant, there seems to be no reason why his power shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty which is Custodia legis or who is expressly authorised by the court to institute a suit for collection of the assets is entitled to institute a suit in his own name provided he does so. in his capacity as a Receiver. If any property is in custodia legis the contesting parties cannot deal with it in an manner, and, therefore, there must be some authority competent to deal with it, in the interest of the parties themselves. A Receiver who is placed in charge of the property on behalf of a court can be the only appropriate person who could do so. His function cannot be Limited merely to the preservation of the property and it is open to a court if occasion demands, to confer upon him the power to take such steps including instituting suits in the interest of the parties themselves. Here apparently the Receiver was not a person with full powers but by its order dated June 26, 1949 the, court authorised him to collect debts, particularly as some debts were liable to get barred by time. The Receiver, therefore, had the right to institute the suit in question. It is, however, contended that the order does not say specifically that he should institute a suit. In our opinion, the au....