TIRUVENKATA MOOPPANAR AND ANOTHER Vs. SUBBIAH MOOPPANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for an injunction restraining the appellants from supplying and selling the betel leaves grown by them in the revenue village of Kadayanallur to any one except the respondent till 31st May 1960 and for directing the appellants to pay the respondent Rs. 500 as damages caused by withholding the supply of better leaves to the respondent till the date of the plaint. The respondent's case is that the parties belong to Senear community whose caste profession is cultivation of betel leaves. It was the custom and usage among the members of the Senear community to entrust all the betel leaves grown in the village to a particular person and not to sell themselves to any other individual. These betel leaves used to be put in auction among the members of the community and the amount fetched at the auction was treated as common fund and utilised for the common benefit of the members of the community. And the highest bidder at the auction was entitled to receive all the betel leaves from the members of the community and no member had a right to sell the betel leaves to any one outside the village. In accordance with this custom and usage, in the year 1959 this right to receive the supply of betel leaves and sell the same was put in public auction by one Veerabadra Moopanar, a prominent member of the community, in the premises of the Bajana Matam, and the respondent was declared to be the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 645. Thereupon, the respondent paid one -fourth of the amount and obtained a receipt, and also paid the balance of amount in a month's time. According to the respondent, the appellant, quite contrary to the established usage and custom, began to sell their betel leaves to one Paramasiva Moopanar, and also began to purchase betel leaves from the neighbouring villages and sell them in the village of Kadayanallur. The respondent was put to loss and he gave notice to the appellants and finally filed the suit aforesaid.

(2.) The suit is resisted by the appellant that such a condition directing them to sell the leaves to a particular person is a restraint of trade and against public policy and the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The custom pleaded by the respondent is illegal and unreasonable and not binding on them and that it also offends Art. 19 of the Constitution. The appellants are not aware of any kind of lease to the respondent as alleged by him in his plaint. They have not taken part in the auction held by Veerabadra Moopanar, but even assuming that there was such an auction, it is sot valid and binding on them.

(3.) On these pleadings the parties went to trial. The important points to be considered by the trial Court were whether the condition imposed at the auction that all the members of the Senayar community should sell their betel leaves to the highest bidder in the auction was valid and whether the customs pleaded in the plaint was true and valid.