LAWS(SC)-1950-3-3

ABDULLA AHMED Vs. ANIMEFIDRA KISSAN MITTAR

Decided On March 14, 1950
ABDULLA AHMED Appellant
V/S
ANIMEFIDRA KISSAN MITTAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in West Bengal dated 5th January 1948, which varied a judgment and decree passed by a single Judge on 11th June 1945, on the Original. Side of the same Court.

(2.) The appellant who is carrying on business as an estate-broker in Calcutta was employed by the respondent on the terms mentioned in a commission letter dated 5th May 1943, to "negotiate the sale" of premises No. 27, Amratolla Street, Calcutta, belonging to him. In pursuance of this contract the appellant found two persons who were ready and willing to purchase the property for Rs. 1,10,000, and by letters exchanged with them on 2nd June 1943, he purported to concluded a contract for the sale of the property and communicated the same to the respondent by a letter of even date. The respondent, however, entered into an agreement on 9th June 1940, with a nominee of the said persons for the sale of the property for Rs.1,05,000 and eventually executed a conveyance in their favour on 8th December 1943.

(3.) Thereupon the appellant brought the suit alleging that the contract concluded by him with the purchasers for Rs. 1,10,000 on 2nd June 1943,was binding on the respondent and claimed that he was entitled to the payment of Rs. 6,000 as remuneration in accordance with the terms of his employment as he had done all that he was required to do on behalf of the respondent. In the alternative he claimed the same sum as damages for breach of contract. In defence to the suit the respondent pleaded, inter alia, that the appellant had no authority to conclude a binding contract for sale with any one, that the purchasers refused to complete the transaction alleging that they had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the appellant to agree to a price of Rs. 1,10,000, that the subsequent sale was effected independently of the appellant, and that the appellant was not therefore entitled to any remuneration or damages.