SURILAL Vs. FIRM SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal of the Defendants arises under the following circumstances. The Plaintiff firm transacts business as commission agent and the Defendants purchased Alsi ¼ vlyh 1/2 through the agency of the Plaintiff firm. According to the plaint 448 'Pallas' of 'Alsi' were purchased by the Defendants on 26 -5 -43 from other per sons and were pawned with the Plaintiff firm. The Plaintiff had advanced the purchase money to the extent of Rs. 16,986 -8 -3. The Defendants deposited Rs. 4,000 in this account. After some time the Plaintiff firm asked the Defendants to deposit more money informing them that the price of 'Alsi' was going down and that they should deposit more money otherwise ,the 'Alsi' would be sold and if there was any if the balance would be recovered from the Defendant.

(2.) THE Sale of Goods Act was not in force in Gwalior State and so the provisions of the Contract Act are to be considered.

(3.) MUCH argument was addressed to me by Mr. Anand about the validity of the notices. In my opinion there is abundant evidence to show that a notice on 26 -1 -44 had been given to Surilal and on 27 -1 -44 a reply (Ex. P. 4) had been given by the said Defendant, then, there was one notice served on the other Defendants on 29 -10 -44. I do not think there is any force in the contention about the validity of the notices within the meaning of Section 176, Contract Act and this point must fail.