Bissessur Dass & anr. … Plaintiffs
Versus
Johann Smidt ors. … Defendants
Decided on September 6, 1905, [Last Heard on: 06.09.1905]
In a case that followed the principles outlined in the well-known English judgments of Downman vs. William and Seal vs. Wilkinson, the court held that it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to establish that the broker lacked authority. The court also noted that a judge lacked the jurisdiction to issue a decree in a contested lawsuit if there was no evidence or admission by the defendant under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1902. This specific case revolved around a scenario where Party A purchased 100 tons of linseed through Representative S, acting on behalf of Party B. Subsequently, Representative S attempted to repurchase the linseed from Party A at a higher rate for settlement purposes. However, Party B disowned this action, claiming a lack of authority. In response, Party A filed a lawsuit in the Small Cause Court, seeking damages due to a subsequent contract made after the repudiation.
The central issue was whether the burden of proving Party B’s authority rested with Party B or Party A under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of Defendants, Represented by Fox & Mandal that Party B had the obligation to prove their authority, and the allocation of costs was based on this decision. This ruling established a precedent for similar broker-related transactions in the future.
HELD : Burden of proving authority rested with the party claiming the same under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1902.
01 The challenge :
Lectus proin nibh nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum. Ut consequat semper viverra nam libero. Diam
maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices neque. A scelerisque purus semper eget. Sit amet tellus cras
adipiscing. Arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae nunc. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra accumsan
in. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu scelerisque. Eget duis at tellus at urna condimentum.
Leo integer malesuada nunc vel risus commodo viverra. In nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor. Praesent semper
feugiat nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida. Massa massa ultricies mi quis. Senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis
egestas. Imperdiet sed euismod nisi porta lorem mollis aliquam ut. Ultricies leo integer malesuada nunc.
02 The solution :
Lectus proin nibh nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum. Ut consequat semper viverra nam libero. Diam
maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices neque. A scelerisque purus semper eget. Sit amet tellus cras
adipiscing. Arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae nunc. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra accumsan
in. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu scelerisque. Eget duis at tellus at urna condimentum.
Leo integer malesuada nunc vel risus commodo viverra. In nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor. Praesent semper
feugiat nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida. Massa massa ultricies mi quis. Senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis
egestas. Imperdiet sed euismod nisi porta lorem mollis aliquam ut. Ultricies leo integer malesuada nunc.
03 The Result :
Lectus proin nibh nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum. Ut consequat semper viverra nam libero. Diam
maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices neque. A scelerisque purus semper eget. Sit amet tellus cras
adipiscing. Arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae nunc. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra accumsan
in. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu scelerisque. Eget duis at tellus at urna condimentum.
Leo integer malesuada nunc vel risus commodo viverra. In nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor. Praesent semper
feugiat nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida. Massa massa ultricies mi quis. Senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis
egestas. Imperdiet sed euismod nisi porta lorem mollis aliquam ut. Ultricies leo integer malesuada nunc.