MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendants Rameshwarlal and Gopi Kishan in a suit for damages.

2. On 16-3-1962 the defendants had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff Balabux by which the former agreed to sell to the latter plots Nos. 1 to 12 measu-ring 3158 sq. yds. and a bungalow situated in Ajmer. The bungalow was agreed to be sold for Rs. 13,000/- and the plots at the rate of Rs. 11.75 per sq. yds. The plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. The agreement was executed by the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of their brothers widow Mst. Ajodhia Bai, who was at Indore. The sale was to be completed within one month when the remaining purchase money was to be paid by the vendee. It was agreed between the parties that if the vendors failed to complete the sale they would be liable to refund the earnest money and further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages for the breach of contract. It was also agreed that in case the vendee failed to complete the sale, he will be liable to forfeiture of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. On 14-12-62 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of earnest money amounting to Rs. 5,000/- and the stipulated damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, total Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the defendants had broken the contract. It was alleged that the defendants failed to get the signature of their brothers widow on the agreement Ex. 1; that they failed to execute the sale-deed within the stipulated period of one month; and that during this period the plaintiff received notices from two persons in whose favour certain portions of the land sought to be sold to the plaintiff had been earlier agreed to be sold to others by the defendants. The defendants admitted having executed the agreement Ex. 1 dt. 16-3-62. They resisted the suit mainly on two grounds—(1) that time was not the essence of the contract and it was the plaintiff who backed out from the contract and (2) that the claim for damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/- over and above the refund of earnest money was not liable to be decreed in view of the provisions of sec. 74 of the contract Act. The trial judge held that the defendants and not the plaintiff were responsible for the breach of contract. It has been further held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of earnest money as well as the sum of Rs. 5,000/- named in Ex. 1 as damages. The su:t was accordingly decreed for Rs. 10,000/-. On appeal, the defendant-appellants did not challenge the trial courts finding that the defendants were responsible for the breach of contract. The only point that was urged before the appellate court was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 5,000/- claimed as damages. The learned District Judge placing reliance on the principles laid down in the case of Badhava Singh vs. Charan Singh(l) affirmed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, The reasons which persuaded the learned District Judge to dismiss the appeal are contained in paras 3 and 9 of the judgment. They run as follows—

"8. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is to be noted that it has been stipulated in agreement Ex. 1 that either party in the event of breach would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the other by way of damages. In the case of breach by the vendors, they were held liable to refund the earnest money and were to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages to the vendee and in case of breach on the part of the vendee the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money with the vendors was to be forfeited. The question to be considered is whether the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as damages for the breach by the vendors would be termed as "reasonable compensation." The plaintiffs version is that he wanted to construct a cinema house on the piece of land covered by Ex. 1 and that he had to incur heavy loss because of the defendants failure to have completed the contract as he was forced to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document