PURNA CHANDRA DUTT Vs. INDRA CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is In action for specific performance of an agreement to sell the divided portion of premises Nos. 1 and 2, Gopal Chandra's Lane, in the town of Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 45,000.

(2.) The facts, shortly, are as follows : On the 20 January 1920, the defendant banded to two brokers, Bhupendra Kumar Datt and Ghosto Behari Das a letter in these terms: Dear Sirs, I authorise yon to procure a buyer of my divided portion of the above premises" (meaning promises 1 and 2, Gopal Chandra's Lane) "for Rs. 45,000 and on your sending same I shall pay you as remuneration at 1 per cent, on the purchase money. The same will be paid at the registration of the conveyance, otherwise not. This letter will remain in force for a week. On the 27 January 1920, the offer contained in the said letter was accepted by the plaintiff and thereupon the fact of such acceptance was communicated to the defendant through the said brokers and also by a letter written by the plaintiff's Attorney, Mr. B. P. Chunder, which ran in these terms: Dear Sirs, Re 1 and 2, Gopal Chander's Lane. My client, Babu Purna Chandra Dutt of 7-2-1, Joynarain Chunder's Lane, hereby accepts the offer made by you to brokers, Babus Bhupendra Kumar Dutt and Ghosto Behari Das, for the sale of your divided portion of the above premises for Rs. 45,000. Please send me the documents of title for investigation. If you so desire, my client is willing to enter into a formal agreement for sale and purchase.

(3.) The plaintiff alleges that, in the circumstances, there was a valid agreement between, him and the defendant for the sale of the defendant's divided portion of the house and premises 1 and 2, Gopal Chandra's Lane and that, although he has repeatedly called upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract and to send the documents of title for examination by the plaintiffs Attorney, the defendant has failed and neglected to comply with the plaintiff's demands. The defendant in hiss written statement) stated that the offer contained in the letter did not amount to an offer to sell the divided portion of the premises in question; it only amounted to an offer to be put into touch with intending buyers of the premises in question and that it was in nonsense an authority to the broken to sell the plaintiff's property. He further raises the question that the acceptance of the offer by the plaintiff, even if it be assumed that it was communicated to him on the 27 January 1920 and not on the 28th January 1920, (as the defendant alleges), was out of time, because time ran from the 20th January 1920 to the 26 January 1920, both days inclusive.