DINSHAWJI DIED Vs. ABDUL RASOOL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Case No. 105 of 1958 given on 2 1/12/1959 whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs suit for damages for breach of a contract.

(2.) The essential facts of the case are that the plaintiff alleged that he was the contractor for supply of liquor to Bidar and Osmanabad districts for the fasli years 1346 to 1357. The plaintiff wanted to get the contract for the fasli year 1358. On learning that the defendant was also attempting to get the licence for that year, on 15th Amardad 1357 Fasli the parties reached an agreement that both the plaintiff and the defendant should submit separate tenders, that in case the tender submitted by the defendant was accepted, the parties would work out the lease on the basis of partnership between them and that each would be entitled to a half share in the profits. It was further agreed that after the tender was accepted, an application should be filed for including plantiffs name as a partner and a partnership deed should duly be got executed. The tender submitted by the defendant was accepted. In spite of demand from the plaintiff, the defendant refused to file an application for the inclusion of the plaintiffs name as a partner. He also refused to execute the partnership deed. It was therefore, contended that the defendant committed breach of contract as a consequence of which the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000. It was therefore, prayed that a decree for Rs. 50,000 be passed against the defendant, and if after taking the accounts of the said contract, some more amount was found due towards the half share of the plaintiff a decree for the same may also be passed.

(3.) In his written statement the defendant denied any such agreement between the parties. He contended that he submitted the tender for himself. After the tender was accepted, it was not obligatory on the part of the defendant to file any application for the inclusion of the plaintiffs name as a partner. He had never agreed to execute any partnership deed in favour of the plaintiff. He also denied that he committed breach of contract and disputed the correctness of the claim for damages.