G J SUBBARAYULU Vs. ARMANANNAMALAI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from an order passed in execution proceedings instituted on the original side of ihe Court. It raises a question of law, but a statement of the facts is necessary in order to understand the position.

(2.) Under a contract in writing dated the 21 August, 1941, the respondent delivered to the appellants a cinematograph projector. The contract purported to be a hire purchase agreement, but it did not in law amount to such an agreement because there was no option in the appellants to terminate the hire. The contract contemplated the appellants paying for the projector in instalments and it expi-essly provided that the ownership of the machine should not pass to them until the price had been paid in full. In default of payment of an instalment, the respondent had the option of cancelling the contract, in owhich event he had the right to forfeit a sum of Rs. 1,000 which the appellants had deposited with him as security for the fulfilment of their part of the bargain, and of recovering from them hire at the rate of Rs. 350 a month for the period during which the projector remained in their possession. As an alternative, the respondent was given the right of demanding payment of the balance of the agreed price, after giving credit for any amount which the appellants might have paid. The appellants defaulted in the payment of the instalments and the respondent exercised his option of demanding the return ot the machine, of forfeiting the deposit and of recovering hire at the agreed rate. He made the demand, and the appellants did not comply with it. Consequently, he hlfd a sult on the original side for inter alia the following reliefs : (i) the payment of the arrears of hire; (a) the payment of Rs.- 350 per mensem fromnhe date of the suit to the date of the delivery of the projector to him; and (3) an order directing the delivery of the projector to him on or before such date as the Court might fix or to pay to him Rs. 4,500 as its value. 1

(3.) The respondent was very anxious to recover the projector, as owyjig to the war it was very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain such articles and this was the main object of the suit, but the prayer was not drafted in accordance with form 32 of Appendix A of the Civil Procedure Code, which is suggested as a mo del for a plaint where the plaintiff seeks delivery of a specific article. The prayer there suggested, is for the delivery of the article and in case delivery cannot be had, for a decree for itsvaiue. This is in accordance with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 10. The art of pleading is little understood in India and in order to do justice in a case the Court is often constrained to look at a plaint or a written statement as a whole, rather than to what is actually said in a particular paragraph, in order to ascertain the real nature of the claim or defence. Looking at the plaint in this case as a whole, rather to the actual wording of the prayers for relief, we are convinced that what the plaintiff wanted was a decree for delivery of the phattel and a monetary payment if delivery could not be had.