S N AMIRTHAVALLI FIRM Vs. SELVA PERUMAL NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 161 of 1977, on the file of District Munsif" s Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant.

(2.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff-Firm was one for recovery of money against the defendant. Plaintiff-Firm is a salt merchant at Tuticorin and defendant was a manufacturer of salt at Arumuganeri. In 1974 there was scarcity of wagons to load salt in the Railway Stations. It was regulated on quota basis. Being a salt manufacturer, defendant was entitled to allotment of wagons on turn basis. Defendant had orally agreed with the plaintiff at Tuticorin to place the wagons to be allotted to him at Arumuganeri on quota to be utilised by the plaintiff. The wagons included open and covered, and defendant had agreed to place five open wagons and four covered wagons at the disposal of the plaintiff. For that purpose, defendant had received from plaintiff Rs.4, 650 But the defendant had committed breach of contract. He placed 2 open wagons and 4 covered wagons at the disposal of plaintiff. After appropriating a sum of Rs.2,000 towards the supply of wagons, a sum of Rs.2, 650 was due from the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff issued a notice asking for return of the amount. Defendant refused to pay the amount and that necessitated the filing of the suit.

(3.) EVEN before this Court, the respondent was not in a position to show that the oral contract of this nature is prohibited by any law, or that it is illegal. Again, the agreement between the parties was to allot seven open wagons and seven covered wagons. A major portion of the contract is yet to be completed. EVEN if the motive or contract is not recognised by law, plaintiff, if he is withdrawing from the contract and wants only return of the amount parted by him, I do not think that the decisions of the Courts below could be accepted. The plaintiff does not want specific performance, but wants only withdrawal from the contract, or to get back the money which it paid.