ANANT BHARTHI Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages on the ground of a breach of contract to grant a lease. It is an admitted fact that there was a contract between the plaintiff's deceased father and the defendants, under which the defendants agreed to grant a lease of certain houses for a period of six years beginning with Asarh Badi, 2 Sambat 1975, corresponding with the 26 June 1918. In December 1917 this contract was complete and Rs. 2,000 were advanced under a receipt of that date. A regular qabuliat was executed and registered on 18 March 1918, and, under the terms contained in this document, the lease was to be for six years from the period above mentioned. As regards the payment of the lease money, it was provided that the whole amount should be paid within six years in this way: that Rs. 2,000 had been paid previously, Rs. 50 would be paid at the time of the execution of the qabuliat, Rs. 1,250 would be paid after one month from the date of the execution of the document, Rs. 550 would be paid at the beginning of Sambat 1975, that is to say, the time when the lease was to commence, and thereafter five more payments of Rs. 550 each would be made year after year. The total amounts to be paid aggregated Rs. 6,600.

(2.) It is common ground that Rs. 2,000 were paid originally and Rs. 50 were paid about the time when the qabuliat was executed. It is also common ground that possession did not pass from the defendants to the plaintiff's father during the period of the lease. The point in dispute between the parties was whether the breach was committed by one party or the other. The plaintiff's case, as put forward in the plaint, was that, in addition to Rs 2,050, his father paid Rupees 1,250, and was ready to pay Rs. 550 at the commencement of the period. On the other hand the defendants denied receipt of any amount after the payment of Rs. 2,050.

(3.) There was a further plea in the written statement that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation or damages and that the claim was barred by limitation. The plaintiff was in this difficulty: that the contract was entered into directly between his deceased father and the defendants, and his father was dead. After some evidence had been led, the plaintiff agreed to abide by the statement of the defendant, Anant Bharti, so far as the amounts received by him were concerned. The defendant agreed to make a statement as regards these payments. He was examined on 11 December 1924 and denied that he received any amount over and above Rs. 2,050. Unfortunately his statement-in-chief was taken down rather carelessly, and, although he specifically denied the receipt of Rs. 200 in the presence of Bhikai Singh, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the receipt of Rs. 100, alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff, and although he specifically denied the existence of any dealings with the plaintiff's shop as had been suggested by the plaintiff, he stated: "Gopal Singh did not pay me Rs. 250." The evidence which had been led on behalf of the plaintiff was that Rs. 250 had been paid in the presence of Gopal Singh and not that the sum had been paid by Gopal Singh himself. The learned Subordinate Judge did not take care to have the statement of the defendant recorded in such a way as either to amount to an admission or a clear denial of that allegation. Fortunately, however, when further questions were put to the defendant, he did state that, after the registration of the lease, neither Tara Singh came to him a month later, nor did he pay him Rs. 550, nor did he obtain the lease. Indeed, he asserted that, although he demanded the money due to him several time, Tara Singh made a flat refusal, saying that he was not willing to take the lease. Reading the whole of the statement of Anant Bharti, there is no doubt left in our minds that he clearly denied the receipt of any amount over and above Rs. 2,050 which had been admittedly paid. The plaintiff is, therefore, bound by the defendant's denial and it must be taken that no further payments were made by the plaintiff's father or by the plaintiff after the execution of the qabuliat.