Chhangani, J.—This appeal by the defendants Laxminarain and Gyaniram has been directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, dated 12th August, 1954 in a suit for damages for breach of contract, whereby he partially decreed the plaintiff Gulabchands suit for an amount of Rs. 10,411/10/-. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections stating that his suit should have been decreed in toto and praying for increasing the amount of decree by Rs. 7,088/6/-.

2. The case of the plaintiff briefly is that he has been carrying on trade in salt and gunny bags at Sambhar. The defendant Laxminarain and Gyaniram are members of a joint Hindu family of which Laxmi Narain is the Manager. The defendants firm also carries on trade in salt and gunny bags. The trade in gunny bags in Sambhar is said to be subject to the trade usage according to which the transactions between the parties are to be adjusted and set off and delivery of the gunny bags is to be effected after such adjustment and the due date of delivery is the Punam of every month; but an additional period of five days is allowed as a period of grace for effecting delivery. According to the plaintiff, the defendants purchased from the plaintiff 185 bales of gunny bags under three different transactions, the details of which ate as follows :—

Date quantity. Rate Due Date

15th March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad 8, Svt. 2003. 150 bales. Rs. 73/- 5th April, 47

22nd March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad Amavas, Svt. 2003. 25 „ Rs. 75/- 5th April, 47

20th March, 1947 corresponding to Chait Vad 13, Svt. 2003 10 " Rs. 71/8 5th April, 47

3. The defendants sold 5 bales of gunny bags on 22nd March, 1947 Chait Vad Amavas at Rs. 71/8/-. After adjusting the latter transaction, the defendants were bound to take delivery of 170 bales on 10th April, 1947 and of 10 bales on 10th May, 1947 according to the case of the plaintiff. The defendants however, took no delivery or the bales. The plaintiff, therefore, served notice on various dares on the defendants tor taking delivery intimating that in case of failure to take delivery, the bales would be sold in the market at the defendants risk and costs. However, before these notices could be served upon the defendants, the goods were sold in the open market in various instalments at a price much less than the contractual prices. The result of these transactions was that the plaintiff had to debit Rs. 67,871/5/- in the account of the defendants and credit Rs. 52,146/14/- on account of price received on the resale of the gunny bags in open market He, therefore, claimed Rs. 14,725/1/- as damages and Rs. 2,754/15/- as interest thereon, total Rs. 17,750/-.

4. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit. They filed separate written statements. Defendant Laxminarain denied having entered into these transactions of sale altogether. He, however, admitted that some time earlier than the dates of these contracts, he had entered into Mandi and Teji-Mandi transactions with the defendants firm. In these contracts, he only paid some premia to the defendants to buy a right of option to be declared a seller at a particular rate on a particular date and as the plaintiff did not exercise any option on those dates, the premia stood forfeited and these transactions did not mature into resultant contracts of sale and purchase. Realising, however, that there were contracts signed by his employee evidencing regular contracts, he took the plea that Manmal and Kalyanmal, although his employees, were not competent to enter into and execute contracts on his behalf. Alternatively, he pleaded, rather vaguely, that there was no breach of contract. As regards damages, his case was that in no case the plaintiff could be entitled to claim damages on the basis of the difference in the contractual price and the price obtained on resale. He can at best claim damages on the basis of the difference between the contractual rate and the rate prevailing on the due date. The o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document