( 1 ) THESE two appeals raise questions of law and fact and may he conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the two suits O. S. Nos. 10 and 13 of 1951 out of which they arise were, at the request of the parties tried together and a common judgment was rendered by the Additonal Subordinate Judge, Vijayavada. The plaintiff-seller in both the suits is a firm registered under the Partnership Act doing business at Vijayavada in jute products. The 2nd defendant who is a broker and is said to have brought about the contract between the purchaser and the seller is common to both the suits. The buyer is the 1st defendant in each of the suits, They are separate individuals. The suits are tor recovery of damages for breach of contract on account of non-acceptance of the goods sold.

( 2 ) BRICTLY stated, the facts, according to the plaintitis case are: that on 20-12-1947 the 2nd defendant arranged contracts Nos. 367 and 368 at Vijayavada between the plainliif on the one hand and the 1st defendant in O, S. No. 10 and also O. S, No. 13 of 1951 on the Other hand, under which the 1st defendant in each case agreed to purchase from the plaintiff 100 bales of jute twine, each consistin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document