LACHHMI NEWAS Vs. FIRM RAM DAS RAMNIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal against the judgment of our brother Beg, J., arises out of a suit which was filed by the present appellants, Lachhmi Niwas Rice Mills, against Ram Deo Ram Niwas who are respondents in this appeal, for the recovery of Rs. 820/-as damages for breach of contract under circumstances given below.

(2.) The appellants deal in grains at Tikonia in district Kheri, while the respondents deal in grains at Colonelganj in district Gonda. Under an agreement, which according to the appellants, evidenced a completed sale, and according to the respondents, amounted to only an agreement of sale, the parties entered into a transaction for the sale of 600 maunds of broken rice 'Bilty-cut' at Rs. 14/8 per maund on 2nd August, 1953. The appellants agreed to sell the aforesaid quantity of rice 'Bilty-cut', which means he undertook to bag the goods and book the consignment and deliver the railway receipt for the same to the respondents, whose representative, Ashrafi Lal, paid Rs. 500/- in cash on the spot, and undertook to pay Rs. 500/- on return to Colonelganj. The balance of the price was to be paid on the delivery of the railway receipt. Ashrafi Lal got the goods weighed and stocked in the godowns of the appellants on 3rd August. The goods were to be despatched by the appellants on the wagon being available, the relevant part of the agreement providing "gari milne se lad javega".

(3.) The appellants applied for the wagons being allotted to them for despatch of these goods, but the wagons being in short supply, none could be allotted within the month. The appellants, therefore, wrote to the respondents on 20th August, 1953, that there was likely to be delay in the despatch of the goods as availability of the wagons was not in their hand, and suggesting that if the respondents agreed to the goods being despatched in an open wagon, the same could be arranged immediately. The appellants, however, pointed out that in that case the respondents will have to make arrangement for a tarpaulin for covering the goods and also for a man to accompany the wagon so as to guard against pilferage. The respondents wrote back on 25th August, that it was the appellant's responsibility for booking the goods and that even if the goods were to be booked in an open wagon, all consequent additional charges will have to be paid by them. The respondents further intimated to the appellants that unless the railway receipt was received by them within eight days of the despatch of the letter, i.e., by 3rd September, 1953, latest the appellants would be deemed to have committed breach of the contract and be liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- as damages.