JUDGMENT :- The second appeal by the State of Madras represented by the Director of Agriculture, the plaintiff in both the courts below, is upon a short point. The following facts are sufficient for an adjudication of the issue now arising for determination.

2. The plaintiff-appellant stated that the defendant was supplied with a 30 H.P. crude oil engine by the Director of Agriculture, pursuant to a treaty between the parties. The engine was delivered on 20-10-1946 and the defendant (respondent) paid a tentative cost of Rs. 3500. The understanding between the parties was that the final price was to be determined by Government, and that, thereafter, the defendant should pay the difference. Admittedly, the defendant gave a letter agreeing to pay the difference in price, after the final fixation of the price of the engine by Government. The Government (appellant) claimed that they had determined the figure at Rs. 6060, and that the defendant should pay the balance. This was the controversy at the trial.

3. The learned District Munsif found that the letter by the defendant dated 8-12-1949 was not enforceable as a valid agreement in law, as it did not conform to the requirements