GAJADHAR BALARAM Vs. DAYARAM GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The suit is on a promissory note payable on demand for Rs. 200 dated 20th February 1930. The defendants admit execution but plead that the consideration was not advanced as a loan but was part of the purchase price of a field in the Holkar State which the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendants. The sale required sanction from the State authorities, consequently the plaintiff insisted on the promissory note in case the transaction fell through. This has been found to be the fact by the lower Court, and I see no reason for interfering with that finding.

(2.) THE defendants further plead that the full transaction consisted of the following parts: First of all there was a payment of Rs. 50 as earnest money, then there was payment of this Rs. 200 as part payment of the purchase money, and lastly there was the execution of a promissory note for Rs. 1,000 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants, being the remainder of the purchasa price of the field. This made a total consideration of Rs. 1,250, which, was the price agreed upon between the parties for the field. The defendants then continue their pleading as follows: Afterwards, according to the law of Holker's State, on account of the plaintiff not residing in the village, and on aocount of the fall of prices of fields, the plaintiff refused to purchase the defendants' field and broke the saoda.

(3.) THIS conclusion by no means follows from the premises on which the learned Judge has based his decision. Before a breach on the plaintiff's part could be deduced from those facts it would be necessary to hold that it was a part of the agreement that Bankatram should reside in the Holkar State. There is no trace of any such condition in the pleadings; in fact Bankatram's name is not mentioned at all. The plea is. that the plaintiff refused to reside there; not that Bankatram did so. Moreover, there is no plea that either the plaintiff or Bankatram had ever agreed to reside there. The defendants' position is again emphasised in their oral statement which is as follows: The plaintiff broke the contract as he did not live in the village, and for this reason the application made by the plaintiff for mutation was rejected.