GYANIRAM Vs. GULAB CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants Laxminarain and Gyaniram has been directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, dated 12th August, 1954 in a suit for damages for breach of contract, whereby he partially decreed the plaintiff Gulabchand's suit for an amount of Rs. 10,411/10/ -. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections stating that his suit should have been decreed in toto and praying for increasing the amount of decree by Rs. 7,088/6/ -.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff briefly is that he has been carrying on trade in salt and gunny bags at Sambhar. THE defendant Laxminarain and Gyaniram are members of a joint Hindu family of which Laxmi Narain is the Manager. THE defendants' firm also carries on trade in salt and gunny bags. THE trade in gunny bags in Sambhar is said to be subject to the trade usage according to which the transactions between the parties are to be adjusted and set off and delivery of the gunny bags is to be effected after such adjustment and the due date of delivery is the Punam of every month; but an additional period of five days is allowed as a period of grace for effecting delivery. According to the plaintiff, the defendants purchased from the plaintiff 185 bales of gunny bags under three different transactions, the details of which ate as follows : - Date quantity. Rate Due Date 15th March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad 8, Svt. 2003. 150 bales. Rs. 73/- 5th April, 47 22nd March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad Amavas, Svt. 2003. 25 Rs. 75/- 5th April, 47 20th March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad 13, Svt. 2003 10 " Rs. 71/8 5th April, 47

(3.) EXAMINING the case in the light of the above principle, we might mention that it was the defendant's own case that the damages could be claimed only on the basis of difference between the contractual price and the market price on the due date. Further, the issue framed in the case is also comprehensive enough and can be easily said to cover the whole controversy about the quantum of compensation. It reads as follows : - "whether the plaintiff proves that on taking account of all the transactions Rs. 14,725/1/and Rs, 2,754/15/-, total Rs. 17,500/- are properly due? If not, what amount, if any, is due to the plaintiff?