LAWS(PVC)-1947-11-61

W JAYARAGHAVAN Vs. LEO FILMS

Decided On November 28, 1947
W JAYARAGHAVAN Appellant
V/S
LEO FILMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the amount of damages awarded to the defendants upon their counter-claim. The plaintiff (hereafter called " the appellant,") carries on business as a film distributor. The defendant firm, of which Mr. C.S. Jagannathan is the managing partner (to whom it is convenient hereafter to refer as " the respondent ") were producers of a Tamil talkie picture named " Poompavai." Whilst the film was in course of production, and before it had been completed, a contract dated 6 May, 1943, was made between the respondent (therein called " the lessor ") and the appellant (therein called the "lessee") whereby it was agreed inter alia that (1) the respondent should lease to the appellant the rights of exploiting the picture " Poom-pavai " within the districts specified in the agreement, including the City of Madras, for five years from the date of delivery of the picture; (2) the appellant to pay to the respondent, as rent, the sum of Rs. 32,000 of which Rs. 2,016 was payable on the date of the agreement, three sums of Rs. 5,000 each payable on 16 May, 16 June and 16 July, 1943, and the balance of Rs. 14,984 on delivery of two-copies of the picture; and (3) in case of any infringement by either party, the defaulter should compensate the other for the loss sustained.

(2.) The appellant duly made the first payment of Rs. 2,016 but he failed to pay any instalment thereafter, the first default taking place on 16 May, 1943, when a sum of Rs. 5,000 then due was not paid. The respondent treated the appellant's failure as a repudiation of the agreement, thereby entitled him to terminate it, which accordingly he did. The appellant instituted a suit, C.S. No. 22 of 1944, against the respondent claiming specific performance of the agreement and damages for wrongful repudiation and for return of the amount of Rs. 2,016 paid on or about the 8 May, 1943. The respondent counter-claimed for damages, alleging they amounted to Rs. 20,000, but he limited his claim to Rs. 5,000. The suit was tried by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., sitting in the exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, who held that the respondent was in breach and the appellant was not. On appeal, that decision was set aside; the appellate Court found that the appellant was at fault and the respondent was justified in terminating the contract and directed that the counter-claim be remanded to the Original-Side of this High Court to inquire into the damages and to pass a decree for the amount found due to the respondent. The appellate Court upheld a finding that the appellant was entitled to return of the sum of Rs. 2,016. The latter finding clearly was pursuant to the provisions of Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act.

(3.) Clark, J., inquired into the amount of damages recoverable by the respondent and adjudged the amount to be a sum of Rs. 5,000. This is the appellant's appeal against the amount of damages so awarded; that is the sole question for consideration and no other question arises.