SARASWATI DEVI Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2500/- as brokerage.

(2.) The respondent (plaintiff) is a broker (estate agent) by profession and carries on his business at Ajmer. He claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 2500/-from Smt. Saraswaati R. Mehta (defendant No. 1) and her husband Shri Rang-raj Mehta (defendant No. 2 since dead and now represented by his legal representatives) as brokerage on the ground that he was employed by the deiendants to find a purchaser for a property of defendant No. 1 bearing A. M. C. XX/221 and XX/224 situated at Beawar Raod, Ajmer and to introduce her and said properties to a purchaser. According to the plaintiff through his efforts he introduced Prahlad Kumar Jindal of M/s. Jindal and Co., Arms dealer, Ajmer to the defendants and they gave the highest offer of Rs. 1,25,000/- to him for the aforesaid properties. When the name of the purchaser was disclosed to the defendants by the plaintiff and when they were told that their offer was for Rs. 1,25,000/- the defendants gave out at Bombay that they were prepared to accept Rs. 1,25,000/- as the net sale price for the properties and the same should be increased by Rs. 2,500/- which the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff by way of brokerage or remuneration for the work done by him on their behalf. He contacted the prospective purchaser Shri Prahlad Kumar Jindal and told him that transaction can be settled for a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- and that he should give his consent to the transaction. Shri Prahlad Kumar Jindal gave his consent and also instructed the plaintiff to deliver the two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively, which the plaintiff had brought with him from Ajmer to the defendants towards the sale price. According to the plaintiff the contract was concluded and later on instead of aforesaid two cheques, a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- in the name of defendant No. 1 was given by Shri Prahlad Kumar Jinal and a draft agreement was also prepared, but later on the defendants refused to sign the agreement. The case of the plaintiff was that he had completed the job entrusted to him in finding a purchaser and introducing the defendants and their properties to him and as such even if because of the default of the defendants the transaction could not be through, he is entitled from his remuneration for the job done by him for the defendants. The plaintiff also claimed a sum of Rs. 320.95 as expenses incurred in going to Bombay at the instance of the defendants.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 in her separate written statement pleaded that she never asked the plaintiff to Arrange for the sale of her property. She traversed all the averments in the plaint except that she came to Ajmer on 3-1-1963. The defendant No. 2 set up a case that the property did not belong to him and the plaintiff was only authorised to enter into negotiations for the sale of the property and negotiations never ripened and were never finalised. He also raised other objections including an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because the agreement for payment of commission, if any, took place at Bombay and not at Ajmer.