K C MEHTA Vs. CASSUMBHAI KESHAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to recover Rs. 4,000 being brokerage alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that in December 1921 he was employed by the defendant as a broker to raise a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 on a mortgage of the defendant's property at Ripon Road. The terms of employment-as to which there is no dispute between the parties -were that the defendant should pay brokerage to the plaintiff at the rate of two per cent. on completion of the mortgage.

(3.) The plaintiff says that he went and saw two or three persons about the loan and that eventually he saw Mr. Cama, who expressed his willingness to make a loan if the property was a substantial one. Mr. Cama, accompanied by the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant's son, went and saw the property, and he eventually agreed to advance Rs. 2,00,000 on a first mortgage of the said property at interest at the rate of nine per cent. per annum free from income tax. Thereafter, on the 11 January 1921, the plaintiff, the defendant and his son saw Mr. Cama at his office pursuant to an appointment made with him, and from there they proceeded to the office of Messrs. Shroff & Lam, Mr. Cama's attorneys. There the remaining terms of the loan were discussed and settled, and Mr. Lam made a note (Ex. A) of the terms agreed upon between the defendant and Mr. Cama. There is no dispute between the parties as to these terms; in fact the notes made by Mr. Lam were put in by counsel for the plaintiff in his opening with the consent of counsel for the defendant.