Bhagwandas and Another vs Keshwarlal

Coutts, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Keshwar Lal against Bhagwan Das for recovery of Rs. 1,994-0-3 as damages on account of loss caused by the sale of grain, price of cloth and price of certain gunny bags. The suit was partially decreed in the Court of first instance but on appeal the suit has been dismisses except in respect of a sum of Rs. 80-10-0, the price of gunny bags, which the learned Subordinate Judge has directed to be deducted out of a sum decreed in a connected suit. In this appeal the plaintiff has challenged the whole decree including that part of it which has directed that Rs. 80-00-0 shall be deducted out of the sum decreed in the connected suit, in regard to this last matter it is admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed so that it is not necessary to discuss this portion of the case further.

I shall next deal with the question of damages. This claim arises in the following way: The plaintiff sold Masoor to the defendant who did not pay the price nor did he take delivery. The plaintiff, therefore, after giving him notice sold the grain. The price at which he sold was a lower price than that at which he had originally sold to the defendant and he claims the difference as damages. The case is clearly one u/s 107 of the Contract Act and the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the clam-ages, which were decreed to him in the Court of first instance.

The last point is the claim in respect of the price of cloth. In regard to this matter I am unable to understand the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, and, the learned Vakil for the respondent has admitted that he also is unable to understand it. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the claim apparently because a certain Farkhati Bahi in which, he says, the entry in regard to the price of cloth should find place, has not been produced. He has, however, in an earlier portion of his judgment, referred to the Farkhati Bahi which apparently he had examined. I am unable to reconcile these two statements, and, as I have already said, the learned Vakil for the respondent has frankly admitted that he himself is unable to understand the judgment on this point. So far, then, as this item is concerned, the matter must be re-heard and decided in accordance with law.

I would, therefore, decree this appeal in so far as it relates to damages to the extent indicated in the body of the judgment, and also for the price of gunny bags and I would remand the appeal for re-hearing and for decision in accordance with law in regard to the price of cloth which has been claimed. Costs in proportion to the success of the parties.

Adami, J.

I agree.