The measure of damages for breach of contract is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of the breach.

1. This is an appeal from a decree passed in civil suit No. 3-B of 1944 on 18-7-1945 by the Second Subordinate Judge. First Class, Jabalpur. It was a suit for refund of earnest money and for damages for breach of contract of sale of the defendant's bungalow No. 134/125 with the land on which it is situated. The land was held under a Nazul lease for 30 years from 1908-09. Through her specially authorised agent Shri E. Walker (D. W. 1) the defendant agreed on 10-9-1943 to sell the bungalow to the plaintiff for Rs. 35,000/-. Rs. 2,500/- were paid, according to the plaintiff, as part of the price and according to the defendant, as earnest money, and a receipt dated 10-9-1943 (exhibit P-1) containing the terms of the agreement was given to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed and registered on 13-9-1943. The other terms of the agreement were - Thirty two thousand and five hundred will be paid at the time of registration on Monday the 13th of September 1943 at 12 noon. During this period the purchaser shall satisfy himself about the title deed etc. of this property. In case any thing is wrong with the title deeds etc. the amount of earnest money shall be refunded. If the purchaser fails to get the sale deed executed on or by Monday, the earnest money shall be forfeited. The purchaser shall bear the cost of stamp and registration.

2. Certain papers including the lease deed exhibit P-7 were shown by the defendant's agent to the plaintiff who. on a perusal of the lease deed (exhibit P-7), contended that the lease which had expired in 1939 was not renewed and that the defendant had no title which she could convey to him. Some more papers were shown by the defendant's agent to the plaintiff but the latter was not satisfied and sent a telegram to the former. There was then an exchange of notices between the parties and ultimately the defendant sold the bungalow to another person on 4-10-1943. These are the facts about which there is now no dispute.

3. On these facts each party is accusing the other of having broken the contract. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had broken it and so it dismissed the plaintiff's suit except for the sum of Rs. 525 which the plaintiff had paid to the defendant for purchasing stamp for the sale -deed.

4. The plaintiff's contention in this appeal is the same, namely that the defendant is responsible for the breach of the contract.

5. It is clear from the evidence of Walker (D. W. 1) that no papers relating to the bungalow were shown to the plaintiff on 9-9-1943 when they had a talk about the sale of the bungalow. At this talk not only was the price settled but also the cay of execution and registration of the sale deed. It is not very clear from the record whether the documents were shown on the 10th or 11th. but this much is clear from the agreement exhibit P-l dated 10-9-1943 that the plaintiff was not satisfied about the title deed etc. of the property. On 11-9-1943 the plaintiff paid Rs. 525/- for buying the stamp for the sale deed. On the following day the parties met at the house of Shri V.S. Pandit. Advocate and Legal Adviser of the plaintiff and there is no doubt that the plaintiff was shown the lease deed exhibit P-7 and a copy of the Nazul Maintenance Khasra (exhibit D-10 or another copy similar to it) some time before this sitting or at this sitting. The material on record shows that the plaintiff was not satisfied even at this sitting about the title of the defendant. "This is why Shri Pandit Advocate, Shri Naik counsel for the defendant and Walkar (D. W. 1) went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner on the 13th at 11 a. m. and saw the original record of the revenue case. What happened after the perusal of the revenue record is not clear but later on the plaintiff served the defendant's agent with the following notice (exhibit P-8): No marketable title: lease not renewed: return purchase price and stamp money or satisfy.Dwarkaprasad C/o Bhuramal Ramdayal.

To