SUNDARA BAYAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATESWARA & CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed O.S. No. 139 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupati, for recovery of damages of Rs. 2,500 for breach of a contract entered into by the defendants. The defendants contended that there was no concluded contract and that they were not liable to pay any damages. The District Munsif, Tirupati, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,000 but, on appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor held that there was no concluded contract entered into between the parties and that the appellants herein were not entitled to recover any damages. The Second Appeal is therefore filed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree of the subordinate Judge of Chittoor.

(2.) The contract entered into between the parties is not evidenced by any document. The terms of the contract are to be gathered from the correspondence that passed between the parties. On 11th January, 1947, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants that they would purchase 500 bags of gingelly (Anantapur variety) at the rate of Rs. 48 per bag and that they would send advance if the defendants agreed to supply. On 13th January, 1947, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs that they had only Dharmavaram variety. The plaintiffs once again wrote to the defendants by their post-card dated 13th January, 1947, that they required only Anantapur variety. They also promised to send advance after confirming the order if the price was mentioned. On 18th January, 1947, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs that gingelly of Kalyandurgam at Rs. 48 a bag was available and the Plaintiffs by their letter dated 21st January, 1947, marked as Exhibit A-17 agreed to purchase the same. The terms of the contract might be gleaned from the letter sent by the defendants to the plaintiffs on 23rd January, 1947, marked as Exhibit A-3 and are as follows :

(3.) On 25th January, the defendants wrote to the Plaintiffs enquiring to what place the gingelly seeds should be sent. Therein they insisted that the hundi amount should be paid as indicated in the telegram sent by the plaintiffs, Exhibit A-19. Though the hundi was presented and the plaintiffs offered to pay the amount by their telegram, Exhibit A-19, and by their letter Exhibit A-20 they did as a act honour the hundi till 5th February, 1947. On 31st January, 1947, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs in the following terms :