(1.) THE question in this appeal is whether the second defendant was authorised to sell a house owned by the first defendant. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, sued on the original side of this Court for damages for the breach of a contract to sell to him a house. He says that the first defendant gave full authority to the second defendant to sell the house on his behalf and that the second defendant entered into a contract with him within the scope of this authority. The first defendant refused to honour the contract, and sold the property to a third party for the sum of Rs. 32,000. The suit was for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 5,000 being the difference between the price at which the plaintiff agreed to buy the property and its true value, as shown by the sale to the third party. The plaintiff asked for a decree against both the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,114. It is now admitted that the figure should only be Rs. 5,000. The learned trial Judge (Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.) dismissed the suit against both the defendants on the ground that the second defendant had not authority to contract with the plaintiff. We find ourselves unable to share the opinion of the learned Judge.
(2.) ON the 22nd October, 1941, the first defendant wrote this letter to the second defendant:
(3.) ON the 5th November, 1941, the second defendant wrote to the plaintiff in these terms: