M DELLI GRAMANI Vs. C R RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. On 30-4-1945 they entered into an agreement with the respondent Ex. P. 4 for the sale of a cocoanut thope for the price of Rs. two lakhs. An advance of Rs. 25000 was paid on that date. The respondent made further payments towards the sale price and got into possession of the properties on 14-7-1945: vide Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. The transaction itself was completed by the execution of a sale deed Ex. P. 15 by the appellants on 20-7-19-15. On 2-9-1946 the respondent sent a notice, Ex. P. 16, wherein he complained that the extant of the property given in the sale deed was not correct, that there was a deficiency of about 21 grounds and that the appellants should pay Rs. 32500 by way of compensation.

(2.) The appellants sent a reply, Ex. p. 17, on 12-10-1946. They stated that what was sold was a cocoanut thope within well-defined boundaries, that the extent of the properties was immaterial and that the purchaser was not entitled to any compensation. Thereupon the respondent filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24097 by way of compensation and damages. It is alleged in the plaint that the appellants represented and assured the purchaser that the property was of the extent of 6 cawnies, 5 grounds and 1035 1/4 square feet, that on the basis of this assurance the price was fixed at Rs. 1325 per ground, mat in fact there was a deficiency to the extent of 15.4 grounds, that the representations of the appellants aforesaid were fraudulent and that they were liable in damages. The amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 24097 particulars for which were given in para. 2 of the plaint. The defendants denied that they made any specific representations as regards the extent Of the property and stated that they took the measurements only from the previous title deeds, that what was agreed to be sold was only the cocoanut thope and that the extent was a mere misdescription, that there was no fraud on their part and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) The following issues were framed: