HARIBUX SINGHANIA Vs. OMRAO DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's action against the defendants for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 9,000/- as the agreed brokerage earned by him for sale of the divided northern portion of premises No. 24, Burtolla Street, Calcutta. The plaintiff was employed as a broker by Rai Bahadur Badridas Tulsan. Badridas Tulsan died in June, 1948, leaving his widow and sons who are defendants to this suit.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that in November, 1943 Badridas Tulsan employed him as a broker to negotiate for and put through the sale at a price of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Badridas Tulsan or his nominee and that the plaintiff would be entitled to a lump sum brokerage of Rs. 9,000/- from Badridas Tulsan upon the Agreement for sale being effected and possession of the said northern portion of the premises being made over to Badridas Tulsan or his nominee by Keshavdeo Tulsan. Incidentally. Badridas Tulsan and Keshavdeo Tulsan were two brothers the former being the owner of the divided southern portion of the said premises and the latter being the owner of the divided northern portion of the same premises. The sale for which the plaintiff was employed was a sale of Keshavdeo's northern portion to Badridas.

(3.) The defence of defendant Omrao Debi, widow of Badridas Tulsan, in her written statement is in substance this. Keshavdeo was not a willing seller. Having entered into an Agreement for sale, he refused to convey his northern portion of the said premises. The result was that Badridas Tulsan through his benamdar Baldeodas Jhunjhunwalla had to file a suit in this High Court being Suit No. 1278 of 1944 for specific performance of the said Agreement for sale. It was defended by Keshavdeo. A decree was passed in favour of Baldeodas Jhunjhunwalla, the benamdar of Badridas, on 7-7-1947. But Keshavdeo Tulsan was not content and he appealed from that decree. On 12-4-1948 Keshavdeo's appeal was dismissed with costs. That even was not the end of Keshavdeo's refusal to convey. Thereafter he filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 1298 of 1948 against both Badridas Tulsan and Baldeodas Jhunjhunwalla for a decree that Keshavdeo was entitled to a reconveyance of the said northern portion from the defendants in that suit. In fact, he applied and obtained an injunction in that suit restraining both Badridas and Baldeodas from executing the decree made in Suit No. 1278 of 1944. Keshavdeo's main contention throughout was that it was not an outright sale at all but at best only a conditional sale, and he pleaded an agreement to reconvey. This was not the end of the story. There was a further crop of litigations.