JUDGMENT

1. In this case, two suit have been brought arising out of some transactions, which may or may not have been speculative in the real sense of the word, for the purchase and sale of grain-pits confining wheat in the town of Hapur. The period fixed for delivery and completion of the purchase-money was the month of March, 1916, the contracts having been for the most part made in the previous October. It appears that there were at least two contracts, one for two grain pits and one for five but, although that might have been material in one aspect of the case, neither party has made anything of the point and the transaction has been treaded as that of one contract only for the sale of seven grain pits, Where it does not otherwise appear in this judgment, the purchaser, Kishorei Lal, is called the plaintiff and Jiwan Lal, the agent, is tailed the defendant. It is admitted on both bands that the contract was not carried out. The purchasers who were plaintiffs in one of the suits paid a sum of Rs. 3,500 in advance as earnest money for the purchase of the pits, whereas, on the other hand, the defendants, before the time allowed by the contrast for the purchaser to take delivery, re gold four of the pits to other purchasers, so that the sellers whether they were actually agents or principals in their dealings with Kishori Lal, the purchaser, were unable to deliver more than three and declined to deliver even these three, which the purchaser was willing to accept and pay for, unless he also took four other pits which the sellers undertook to deliver, and which were different from those which were originally purchased for the plaintiff appellant. It should be noted that the price in March 1916 had fallen so that the plaintiff, if he had been compelled to take delivery, would have completed the contrast at a loss. This may account for the advantage, which he has taken of the alleged breach of contract by the agents who bought for him, and this may also possibly have influenced the mind of the learned Judge against Kishori Lal's case though we ate not prepared to agree if it did so, that there was not a legitimate reason for Kishori Lal repudiating the whole contract as will appear (sic). Under these circumstances, the defendants brought a suit for the lose which they had incurred by re-sale owing to the refusal of the plaintiffs to take delivery of the entire quantity tendered. They have recovered in that suit a sum of Rs. 5,757-4-0 with costs against Kishori Lal, the purchaser. In the other suit, Kishori Lal sued for the return of his principal and Rs. 339-8-0 interest from the 23rd of October 1915 which was presumably the date of payment, down to the 16th of February 1917 presumably the date of the institution of the suit. That suit was dismissed. The purchaser appeals against both the decrees. It would not be necessary to deal with the same came and detail with the matters raised by these appeals which are really perfectly simple and straight forward, if it were not for the public importance involved in the main contention of the respondents, the astounding proposition which they have had the courage to put forward in justification of their defence to the suit and the remarkable dicta contained in the judgment under review. Although a portion of the contract is in writing, namely, what is called the langot or parcha indicating the situation, quantity, price, rate and sale of the grain-pits and certain express stipulations as regards risk, the contracts are made up partly of letters and telegrams and partly of interviews which passed between the plaintiff Kishori Lal, the appellant, and Jiwan Lal, the respondent, his alleged agent. It is extremely difficult to give a clear definition of the capacity in which the defendants acted, for the purpose of reciting the allegations of the parties, as the defendants themselves do not know what they were, and they have shifted their ground in the First Court and in this Court, in defence o