VASANJI MOOLJI Vs. KARSONDAS TEJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the mon August, 1924 the defendant desired to raise a loan on three properties, and he employed the plaintiff as a money broker to find a lender. There is some dispute as to what were the terms of employment, but it is really clear enough that the rate of commission payable to the plaintiff was to be two per cent. That this is so is apparent from the defendant's statement in the course of the evidence that he would have paid the plaintiff two per cent, had he succeeded in finding the loan, And the defendant also states that that is the customary rate of commission on loans on mortgages, What the defendant says about the contract is as follows: I said to Mulraj that I wanted him to get me a loan of four lacs on an equitable mortgage of my three properties. There was no question of a legal mortgage. I gave him the names of the three properties. I did not tell him what they were worth, nor did ho ask. Nothing was said as to the rate of interest, I would have accepted nine per cent.

(2.) The plaintiff says upon the same point: . About August 15 defendant told me he wanted a loan of four lacs on an equitable mortgage of three properties (the names of which are given). He said he wanted a loan at 12 as, (nine per cent.) to pay off a decree against him. He asked me to raise a loan of four lacs. I said I should take two per cent, commission according to the practice in the market.

(3.) Upon those statements there does not seem to be much room for doubt as to the nature of the contract, The plaintiff was to find a party willing to advance up to rupees four laca on equitable mortgage of the defendant's three properties and the defendant was to pay to the plaintiff's commission at the rate of two per cent, on the amount of the loan so to be made.