CHITIBOBU ADENNA Vs. GARIMALLA JAGGARRAYADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions, it seems to me, arise for consideration in this appeal. First, was there a contract between the 1st defendant and the Maharajah acting through his agents, on the strength of which the 1st defendant had a good defence to the plaintiff s claim in the ejectment and which would entitle the 1st defendant to remain in possession of the lands in question? Secondly, assuming there was a contract, was the Maharajah entitled by reason of the events which happened to withdraw his consent and to repudiate the contract and to deal with the lands as if no contract had been entered into?

(2.) The first question turns mainly on the documentary evidence. The 1st document is Exhibit I. This is a record of the sale, as I understand it, of the right of occupancy in the lands in question. The 1st defendant was the highest bidder and we find this statement in the document that as the 1st defendant " bid the last bid for one hundred and fifty rupees, and as no other bid for more than that it (the sale) has been confirmed in the name of the highest bidder, Chitibolu Adenna, subject to the approval and orders of the special agent, Vizianagaram Samastanam". That is dated 8th July 1907. Then on August 16th we have a document which embodies the approval of the Special Agent; that document, which is Ex. V, is in these terms: "The leasing out of the said patta lands for settlement cowle for fasli 1317 to Adenna Chitibobu (the 1st defendant) according to the Amin s recommendation has been approved. It must be duly given effect to". On August 29th we have an application by the plaintiff for a cowle of the lands in question. That is Ex. L. On September 6th we have a document, Exhibit H, which amounts to a grant of the lands in question to the plaintiff, who is now seeking to eject the defendants. The terms of that order are very similar to the terms of the document which embodies the approval by the Special Agent of the confirmation of the sale by the amin in favour of the 1st defendant.

(3.) Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar has contended that Ex. I was nothing more than an offer by the 1st defendant to the Amin. He says that, that being so, there was no contract between the parties because the communication of the acceptance by the agent of the Maharaja was not complete (we must take it, as a fact that the acceptance was not communicated to the 1st defendant). He relies on Section 4 of the Contract Act. " The communication of an acceptance is complete... as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer." If Exhibit I were nothing more than an offer made through the Amin and all that the Amin had said was You have made an offer; I will communicate it to my superior officer and see if he is prepared to accept it," then, no doubt, Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar s contention under Section 4 of the Contract Act would be good. But it seems to me that Ex. I is a great deal more than that. It seems to me that it amounts to an acceptance on behalf of the principal of an offer which has been made subject to a condition subsequent, and that, if that condition subsequent is satisfied, then there is a contract. That the Special Agent in fact approved is not denied.