Meyyappa Chetty vs Nachammal Achi

Sundaram Chetty, J.—In this second appeal, the defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff filed this suit against him for the recovery of a sum of Rs.

1,500 as damages for the breach of a contract of sale evidenced by Ex. A. Both the lower Courts have found that the default was on the

defendant''s part and fixed a sum of Rs. 250 as reasonable compensation awardable to the plaintiff. It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff''s

title to the suit land was not so defective as to justify the defendant in resiling from the contract. The land is situate in a zamindari and patta has been

issued in favour of the plaintiff''s predecessor-in-title without any reservation, except as to payment of rent in kind : vide Ex. G. Presumably this is a

ryoti land in a zamidari and any ryot admitted to possession of such land under the aforesaid patta, gets a permanent right of occupancy. It is

transferable and heritable. That being so, it is quite unintelligible that the defendant should have apprehended any risk or danger to his title by the

purchase of this land. I agree with the lower Courts that the default was clearly on the defendant''s part.

It follows that plaintiff is entitled to receive reasonable compensation from the defendant who has broken the contract, not exceeding the amount

named in the contract Ex A. Taking the circumstances of this case into consideration, both the Courts have fixed Rs. 250 as reasonable

compensation. The learned advocate for the appellant here, laid stress on the admission of P.W. 1, in his evidence that the plaintiff has sustained no

loss by reason of the defendant''s not taking the sale. He goes the length of contending that because the plaintiff has sustained no loss, he is not

entitled to receive any compensation despite the fact that the contract was broken on account of the defendant''s default. This argument in my

opinion runs counter to the express wording in Section 74, Contract Act, which clearly says that the party complaining of the breach is entitled,

whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive reasonable compensation from the other party. All that

can be said in this case by reason of P.W. 1''s evidence is, that no loss is proved to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of the breach.

But this is no bar to the awarding of compensation u/s 74, though this fact may be taken into consideration in fixing the quantum of damages. I see

no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Court. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.