Modi, J.—This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs Sampatraj and others against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Pali dated the 30th July, 1951, in a suit for damages for breach of contract relating to sale of land.

2. The dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement to sell bapi rights in respect of a well called Kosita in Sojat, which was held by the plaintiffs as bapidars. The plaintiffs case was that sometime in 1949, when they wanted to sell their rights in respect of the well in question, defendant-respondents, Pokar and three others, who were tenants at the well and cultivated the land appertaining thereto suggested that the former might consult then before transferring their rights to anybody else as they had spent considerable labour and money on it. Accordingly, the plaintiffs informed the defendants that defendant-respondent Bhanka was willing to purchase the plaintiffs right. Thereupon it was settled that the plaintiffs might hold a sort of an auction between Bhanka and the existing tenants and this was agreed to. The result was that on the 20th January, 1949, an auction was held and defendant Jagga gave the highest bid of Rs. 21,000/-. Thereafter Bhanka and the defendants-tenants had con-solation between themselves and suggested that the plaintiffs might accept an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the defendants jointly. This was accepted It was further agreed that the purchasers would pay the sale consideration within one month from the 20th January, 1949. It was also agreed, before the auction was held, that if the sale would be knocked down in favour of a third party, that is, a person other than the existing tenants, the latter would hand over possession on or before Baisakh Sud 3 corresponding to May 1st, 1949. The proceeding or document embodying all these conditions is marked as Ex. P-l and was signed by Bhanka who was literate and thumb marked by the other defendant-purchasers who were illiterate. On 24th January 1949, the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 500/-towards the sale consideration. As the defendants failed to pay the balance thereof, the plaintiffs sent a written notice to the defendants. The latter replied that the bargain had been settled between the parties not for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as alleged by the plaintiffs but for a sum of Rs. 2000/- only. This, according to the plaintiffs, was quite false. They, therefore, gave another notice in which it was stated that they were selling their rights to purchaser for Rs. 10,000/- and that they would hole the defendants responsible for the loss, but the latter paid no heed to it. Eventually on the 26th April, 1949, the plaintiffs sold their rights to defendant-respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 who were three out of the five persons who had originally agreed to purchase the plaintiffs rights for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- as stated above. This second sale was settled for Rs. 12,000/-. The plaintiffs then instituted the present suit against the defendants for damages amounting to Rs. 8,000/- being the difference between the contract price and the sale price, and gave the defendants credit for the sum of Rs 500/-which was already received by them and further added a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of interest up to the date of the suit. The plain-tiffs thus claimed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in all.

3. Defendants Nos. 3, 4, and 6 admitted the plaintiffs claim. It may be pointed out here that defendant No. 5 Goria is the son of defendants No.4 Pokar and was impleaded by the plaintiffs as he had put his thumb mark on Ex P-l, which is the original agreement for sale, as agent for his father. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They admitted that they were tenants at the plaintiffs well but otherwise denied the plaintiffs claim. They pleaded that the deal between them and the plaintiffs had been settled for a sum of Rs. 2000/- only and that they had signed Ex. P-l under that belief. They also contended that the auction referred to by the plaintiffs was not held pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document