MYSORE SUGAR CO Vs. Y B BORAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the dfendant is directed Against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1974 passed by the Civil Judge, Mandya in R.A. 330 of 1972 on his file modifying the judgment and decree dated 18-9-1972 passed by the Munsiff, Mandya in O. S. No. 618 of 1969 on his file decreeing in part the suit of the plaintiff for damages.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit for damages. The relevant averments are: The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant-company to grow and supply 200 tonnes of sugar-cane in S. No. 282/2 of Guttalu village, in an area of 4 acres, and the plaintiff further agreed to an additional condition with the defendant- company as per Ex. D2 that he would pay damages at Rs. 50/- per tonne on his failure to supply sugar-cane to the defendant company. Likewise, defendant-company also agreed under the contract to take supply of 200 tonnes of sugar cane grown by the plaintiff in S. No. 282/2 of Guttalu village in an extent of 4 acres and pay the prescribed price viz., Rs. 80 per tonne. On the above conditions the agreement Ex. D2 was executed in the month of June 1968 and the same was with the defendant- company. On the strength of the contract the plaintiff supplied 152 tonnes and 830 Kgs. of sugar cane to the company by 14-8-69 and again on 19-9-69 he took 10 tonnes of sugar cane. But the company refused to receive it on the ground that it was not grown in the field in question but that it was grown by the brother of the plaintiff in his land. Thus the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he incurred heavy loss on account of the breach of contract by the company. He spent Rs. 500 towards hire charges and maintenance charges of the lorry. He claimed Rs. 3373-66 towards the value of the rest of the sugar cane that he was bound to supply and Rs. 1400 withheld by the Sugar Company, thus in all Rs. 5273-66 Ps. along with future interest and costs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the Company. According to the company, the breach was committed by the plaintiff. The company denied that any quantity of sugar cane perished. They denied that the plaintiff incurred any damages. They denied that 47 tonnes and 170 Kgs. of sugar cane were available in the suit schedule land for supply. They prayed that the suit be dismissed. On these pleadings' the trial Court raised the following issues: