SUJANMAL Vs. RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sujanmal, one of the plaintiffs, has challenged the appellate decree by which the plaintiffs' suit for damages for breach of contract for Rupees 1371.25 against the first and second respondents, has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Manmal (third respondent) and his son Sujanmal (appellant) as the proprietors of the Hindu undivided family firm Messrs. Dhoolchand Manmal, Chhoti Sadri, instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif, Chhoti Sadri, for the recovery of Rs. 1371.25 as damages for breach of contract against Radhey Shyam and his father Jainarayan (first and second respondents) as proprietors of the Hindu undivided family firm Messrs. Jainarayan Radhey Shyam, Nee-much Cant (M. P.) The case, as disclosed in the plaint, is that on 27-12-63 Radhey Shyam agreed to supply 200 tins of Rasada Vanaspati at the rate of Rs. 44 per tin (16.5001 to the plaintiffs' firm F.O.R. Chhoti Sadri. This agreement was in writing and signed by Radhey Shyam in favour of the plaintiffs' firm. The document is Ex. 1 on record. According to the plaintiffs the defendants did not supply the goods as agreed to by contract Ex. 1. Instead by letter Ex. 2 dated 2-1-64 defendant Radhey Shyam called upon the plaintiffs to pay the price of the goods in advance. The defendants, thus, according to the plaintiffs, committed breach of contract. The plaintiffs served notice Ex. 15 on 18-2-64 calling upon them to pay Rupees 500 by way of nominal damages and Rs 870 as loss of profits @ Rs. 4.35 per tin. To this notice the defendants by their letter Ex. A/4 informed the plaintiffs that they were not responsible for the breach of contract and it were the plaintiffs themselves who rescinded the contract on 26-1-64. They did not accept any liability to pay any damages. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 500 by way of nominal damages and Rs. 870 as actual loss of profits @ Rs. 4.35 per tin and Rs. 1.25 as the expenses incurred in giving the notice.

(3.) This claim was resisted by the defendants by their written statement dated 21-5-64. It was contended that Radhey Shyam alone was the proprie or of the firm Jainarayan Radhey Shyam. Jainarayan (second respondent) had nothing to do with the proprietorship of the firm. That apart, it was contended that the plaintiffs were themselves responsible for the breach of contract. Radhey Shyam justified the claim of the price in advance by his letter dated 2-1-64 on the ground that it was so stipulated between the parties at the time of writing document Ex. 1, though this fact was not mentioned in the said document. He further pleaded that on 26-1-64 plaintiff Sujanmal came to him and asked him to cancel the contract contained in Ex. 1 and in this view of the matter it was alleged that he was not liable to pay any damages. It was, further alleged that the price of Rasada Vanaspati was not raised till 14-2-1964. After the Central Government in its Food and Agricultural Department increased the prices by its notification dated 13-2-1964 with effect from 14-2-64, the plaintiff Sujanmal served the defendants with the notice Ex. 15. According to the defendants the plaintiffs have not suffered any loss on account of the alleged breach of contract.