LAJYA RAM Vs. JALIL UR REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, -has filed this appeal against the decree of Shri K. K. Gujral, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing his' suit. The appellant had filed the suit for recovery, of Rs. 12.100.00 on account of brokerage at the. rate of 2% on the basis of anagreement for exchange dated 26th July, 1948, between the respondents or their predecessers-in-interest and the appellant According to the appellant that transaction had been effected through him as recited in paragraphic of the agreement. Appellant's case was that three properties aggregating Rs. 6,00,000.00 in value and situate in various parts of Delhi belonged to the respondent?, who were desirous of exchanging these properties with some properties situate in rachi. The appellant alleged that the respondents approached him and offered to him a brokerage at the rate of 2% on the value of the properties; that the appellant accepted the offer and ultimately succeeded in making the requisite arrangement as a result of which an agreement for exchange was made on 26th July, 1948, between the respondents on the one hand and Seth Ram Gopal-Goverdhan Dass Mohatta on the other, whereunder the aforesaid properties of the respondents were to be exchanged with the property known as Ram Gopal Market situate in Karachi.

(2.) It was further the appellant's case that on22ndJaly, 1948, he had brought about another agreement of exchange between some of ,the respondents and Rai Babadur Seth Shiv Rattan Goverthan Dass Mohatta of Karachi, whereby such respondents were to transfer some other properties of theirs in Delhi to Rai Bahathir SethShiv Rattan Mohatta inexchange for; the latter's property in Karachi comprising of a plot of land. The appellant further stated that a draft agreement of exchange was prepared which was duly signed by the parties concerned and under this agreement, the respondents concerned with this transaction were to constr,nct a suitable modern building for the benefit of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, who had agreedto take the building-on rent for a period of 20 years in pursuance of agreements dated 10th July, 1945 and 10th June, 1956 between Seth Shiv Rattan Goverdhan Dass Mohatta and the said.Bank. Ultimately, however, the finai agreement for exchange was not signed because the respondents concerned in the transaction backed outof.

(3.) The appellant's case was that the respondents and Rai Bahadur Seth Shiv Rattan Mohatta who was representing Seth .Ram Gopal Goverdhan Dass Mohatta agreed amongst 'themselves to the concellation of both the agreements of exchange. The appellant further alleged that the non-completion of the execution and registration of the final deeds, of exchage in pursuance of the agreement dated 26th July, 1948, was due to the default of the respondents and that his right to claim brokerage from the respondents was not affected in any manner by such cancellation as, according to him, his right to claim brokerage had been earned as soon as the agreement of exchage was entered into.