P NARASIMHA MUDALI Vs. POTTI NARAYANASWAMI CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 282 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed their suit and plaintiffs appeal.

(2.) AChetty firm contracted with a Mudali firm to supply the Mudali firm with twenty-five bales of yarn (Exs. A and A-1). On 24 October, 1918, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. II cancelling the contract because the supply had been irregular. The Chetty firm not accepting this cancellation gave notice of suit ; and in due course filed O.S. No. 27 of 1919 in the Court of the District Munsif of Chittoor. The matter was referred to arbitration and apparently settled by award, but the award is not in evidence. Then on 9 December, 1919, the Mudali firm wrote Ex. D to the Chetty's firm that under the previous contract they were still bound to supply them with 111/2. bales, and if these were not supplied within two days, they would file a suit. Hence the present suit brought by the Mudali firm, the plaintiffs- appellants.

(3.) The point taken in this appeal is that the contract was never cancelled and the appellants rely for this position upon Frost V/s. Knight LR (1873) 7 Ex in. There it is laid down, at page 112, that if one party to a contract repudiate it, the promisee may treat the repudiation as inoperative, and at the end of the period of the contract, treat the other party as responsible for all the consequences of non- performance, thereby keeping the contract alive, or, on the other hand, he may treat the repudiation as a wrongful putting an end to the contract, and may at once bring his action as on a breach of it. The Chetty firm evidently adopted the latter alternative when it brought O.S. No. 27 of 1919. But relying upon a passage in the plaint of that suit the appellants would have it that the Chetties availed themselves of both alternatives. They sued upon the breach of the contract, and in the same breath kept it open. Because in paragraph 11 of their plaint there is a statement that they were still entitled to deliver the rest of the bales. The short answer to this is that they had no right to make any such reservation. Frost v. Knight LR (1872) 7 EX 111 is a recognised authority prescribing the remedies open to a promisee, and he cannot both sue upon the breach and also keep the contract open.