9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is purchases with borrowed capital, and in 1930 he was indebted to several persons, including the appellant, who was a merchant doing business on a large scale in the purchase of paddy. He had advanced about two lakhs of rupees to Po Ni for the purchase of paddy, which was to be delivered by the debtor to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt. 3. It appears that Po Ni was unable to discharge his liabilities, and, accordingly, on July 22, 1930, he presented to the Court of the District Judge at Pegu a petition to be adjudged an insolvent. On August 16, 1930, the Court made an order of adjudication, and appointed the respondent Maung Ba Chit to be the Receiver of the insolvent's estate. This order took effect from July 22, 1930, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the price for 21,000 baskets of paddy. 5. The second lot of paddy measuring about 7,000 baskets belonged to one Hubba, and he sold it to Po Ni on April 25, 1930, at the same rate, viz., at ₹ 160 for 100 baskets. The notes exchanged between the parties contained similar terms, except that the seller received on that date ₹ 600 as earnest money. There is ample evidence, and indeed it is not disputed, that the buyer paid to the seller also another sum, ₹ 100, on that very date, and ₹ 6,000 on May 21, 1930. The balance of the price to be paid by him was, therefore, reduced to ₹ 4,500. Of this lot of paddy, 1,600 and 720 baskets were received by him on May 26 and 27, 1930, respectively, and consigned by him t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief, is the history of the paddy which is the subject of controversy between the parties, and the question is whether the property in the goods had passed to the appellant on July 5. The District Judge answered the question in the affirmative, but the High Court dissented from that view and held that the property would not pass from the seller to the buyer unless, and except in so far as, the measurement of the paddy was effected before the attachment. 9. Now, the rule for determining the time when the property in the goods passes to the buyer is contained in Section 19 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, III of 1930. That section provides that in the case of a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re couched in inelegant and ambiguous language, but appear to be unintelligible in important particulars. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the goods were to be measured for the purpose of ascertaining their price, or that the measurement, if any, was to be done by the sellers. It is true that the price of the paddy was fixed at the rate of ₹ 160 for 100 baskets, but the quantity of the paddy in each lot was declared in the notes exchanged between the parties to the contract, and it required only a simple calculation to determine the total price to be paid for each kit. Indeed, the parties understood that it was the price for the quantity mentioned in the relevant note which was to be paid by the buyer to the seller : and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be ascertained by a subsequent measurement. What is there to prevent the parties from agreeing that the property shall pass from one to the other, although the price is afterwards to be ascertained by measurement. I take it that is the broad substantial distinction. If, with a view to the appropriation of the thing, the measurement is to be made as well as the price ascertained, the passing of the property being a question of intention between the parties, it did not pass because the parties did not intend it to pass. But if you can gather from the whole circumstances of the trarsaction that they intended that the property should pass, and the price should afterwards be ascertained, what is there in principle, what is there in common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
