DEVI LAL Vs. GOSWAMI MAHARAJ GOVIND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for the recovery of damages for breach of contract.

(2.) The suit was instituted by Munsarim of the Nathdwara temple on the 11th of February 1944, in the court of the Munsiff, Nathdwara, alleging that the temple stood in need of purchase of 251 Mds. of ghee on the 9th of August, 1945. Merdhants dealing in the supply of ghee were called at the premises of the temple and bidding took place for quoting the rates at which they were prepared to supply the requisite quantity of ghee to the temple by Bhadwa Sudi Poonam Sambat 2001. The bid of the defendant Devilal to supply ghee at Rs. 54/- per maund (according to the weighment prevalent in the temple) was accepted. He also executed the document (Ex. P/2) agreeing to supply the ghee at that rate by Bhadwa Sudi Poonam, Sambat 2001 and in case of default to compensate for the loss that it might incur in purchasing it from the market and further agreed to pay Rs. 2/- per maund over and above the loss incurred by the temple as penalty. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant supplied only 20 Mds. -- 20 seers -- 7 chhataks of ghee and failed to supply the rest. He further alleged that the price of the ghee on Bhadwa Sudi Poonam Sambat 2001 became Rs. 65/- per maund at which rate the plaintiff purchased it in the market and thereby incurred a loss of Rs. 2,538-5-3. The plaintiff further claimed additional damages at Rs. 2/- per maund which the defendant had agreed to pay under Ex. P/2. The plaintiff gave credit to the defendant to the extent of Rs. 701/10/3 which was the unpaid price of the ghee weighing Mds. 20--9 Srs. 7 Chhataks which the defendant had already supplied to him. Thus, the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 2,298-3-6.

(3.) The defendant took various pleas and I may refer to those only which have been pressed before me on behalf of the appellant for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff failed to pay the full price of ghee which the defendant had supplied to the plaintiff and paid only Rs. 390/- and retained the sum of Rs. 701-10-0 without any reason. On account of this he was not bound to supply the remaining quantity of ghee. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to supply the ghee but the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the price thereof. It was also pleaded that the market rate on Bhadwa Sudi 15, Sambat 2001, was not Rs. 65/- per maund but was about Rs. 54/- per maund.