VENKATARAMANA MURTHY Vs. SUBBAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada given on 7th November 1960. The material facts in order to appreciate the contentions advanced before me are that the plaintiffs-repondents instituted the suit for recovery of advance paid by them and for damages sustained on account of the breach of contract committed by the defendants. It was stated that defendants 1 to 6 are brothers and are sons of the 7th defendant, the father having died. The 1st defendant is the manager of the joint family' Defendants 1 to 6 have another brother called Ramachandra Murthy. Defendants 1 to 7 agreed to sell 20 acres in parts No. 26-A belonging to the joint family to the: plaintiff for- a sum of Rs. 7, 200/- The plaintiffs paid Rs, 2, 720 at the time when Ex A-I was executed on 20th june 1957.They paid subsequently Rs 100 on 18-7-1957 and Rs,500 on 12-9-1957 towards the part payment of the pries, They also paid Rs. 576 for the purpose of purchasing stamps in order to execute the sale deed. It was contended that the defendants had agreed to get the signature of Ramachandra Murthy, which they failed to get. The defendants having commied the breach of contract the plaintiffs put an end to the contract and asked for the refund ot the advance amount paid to the defendants as well as tor damages amounting to Rs. 1, 000 as liqiudated damages mentioned in Ex. A-I, They also asked for the return of Rs. 576 which they had paid for the purchase of stamp paper.

(2.) The 1st defendant on his written statement admitted that the property Agreed to be sold is the joint family property. He however denied that he is the kartha of the joine family. He contended that on the date of the agreement no advance amount of Rs.2, 720 was pud to the defendants. He admitted however the receipt ot subsequent payment of Rs. 600/-. He alleged that it is the plaintiffs who committed the breach of the contract.

(3.) Defendants 3 to 6 filed a separate written statement. It was contended that the 3rd defendant was major at the time when Ex. A-I was executed and consequently the 7th defendant could not have represented him. The other defendants also stated that the 7th defendant was not competent to represent them. The 7the defendant in her separate written stetement adopted the written statement ffled by the 1st defendant.