Grover, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree of the Mysore High Court.
(2.) A suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 22,274.4.0 as damages for breach of contract by the plaintiff (first respondent herein) against M. N. Gangappa now deceased and represented by his legal representatives. The second respondent was also joined as defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants had entered into two contracts with him for the supply of groundnut seeds. It was claimed that both the contracts were for a specified quality of groundnut seeds, for specific delivery at a specified price and were not transferable. The first contract (Exhibit P-20) was entered into on 1st November 1950 and the delivery was stipulated to be made by 31st January, 1951. The damages relating to this contract were claimed at the difference between the contract rate and the market rate which was stated to be Rs. 224/- per candy, on the date of breach i.e. 31st January 1951. The second contract (Exhibit P-29) was entered into on 21st November1950. The damages relating to that contract were claimed on the basis of the difference between the contract rate and the market rate, namely, Rs. 218/- per candy on the date of the breach which was stated to be 28th February 1951.
(3.) On or about the 22nd January 1961 the plaintiff despatched 954 empty gunny bags to Bellary by Rail and sent the Railway Receipt by registered post addressed to the defendants asking them to despatch the stipulated quantity of groundnut seeds agreed to be supplied under the first contract (Ex. P-20) by Rail and to send the Railway Receipt through the Imperial Bank. It was alleged that the registered letter was returned as refused. On 27-1-1951 the plaintiff sent a telegram letter was returned as refused. On 27-1-1951 the plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendants stating that the registered cover containing the parcel Way Bill relating to empty bags had been refused by them and they were called upon to take delivery of the empty gunny bags by giving an indemnity bonds to the Railway authorities. The defendants sent a telegram in reply saying that the transaction in question was of a "satta forward contract and was illegal and unenforceable". This was followed by other telegrams which need not be mentioned. On 12-2-1951, the plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendants asking them to deliver the quantity of groundnut seeds agreed to be sold by means of the second contract (Ex. P-29). The defendants were informed that gunny bags would be sent to them on hearing from them. There was similar correspondence with regard to this contract as well. The defendants took up the position that the contract was illegal. In the written statement also it was asserted by the defendants that the contracts were void under S. 30 of the Contract Act and the Oil Seeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order 1943 (hereinafter called the Order'). The material issues which arose for decision were as follows: "1. Did the suit contracts not intended delivery of goods but only payment of difference in prices and hence void and unenforceable 2. Do the suit contracts contravene the provisions of the Oil Seeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order 1943m, and hence void and unenforceable 3. What is the quantum of damages to be awarded - The Distt. Judge, Bellary, who tried the suit, held that the defendants by means of the contracts Exhibit P-20 and Exhibit P-29 had undertaken to supply groundnut seeds to the plaintiff and that those contracts were not transferable. They were thus not hit by the provisions of the order. After determining the damages, the suit was decreed for Rs. 18,759.8.0 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment.;