9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k No. 13 in Karol- Bagh. On 4-12-1946 Amba Lal entered into an agreement of sale of this plot of land at Rs. 35/- per sq. yard, Rupees 1,000/- were paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid within one month. A document Ex. P. 2 (or D. 7) was executed to evidence this agreement. The agreement provided that Wazir Chand the ostensible purchaser was to remit within one month the balance of the price, Rs. 8,940/- and also a draft of the power-of-attorney which was to be executed in favour of Wazir Chand by Amba Lal who purported to enter into the agreement on behalf of himself as well as Sri Narain his co-owner. On 6-12-1946 Amba Lal wrote to Wazir Chand. asking for the money as well as the draft of the power-of-attorney and on 11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chand was the broker and could not sue for specific performance, that the defendants were always ready and willing to perform the contract but the plaintiffs were not and that the contract was only with Wazir Chand and that there was no contract with plaintiff I. The defence of Sri Narain was that he never authorised any one to enter into any contract and that plea of Sri Narain has prevailed, and as there is no appeal against this part of the decree there is nothing more to be said about that. 6. The Court has found that breach was by the defendants, that Sri Narain was not liable as he did not enter into the contract nor did he authorise Amba Lal, that Wazir Chand could sue as there was no disclosed principal, that plaintiffs were read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had the money, they had sent the money and the only thing which is relied upon for this purpose is that the draft power-of-attorney had not been sent. I do not think that that would make any difference even if that was established. On the other hand it appears that Wazir Chand did go to Ajmer with the money and he did not find the defendants there, and in my opinion the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly held that the breach was on the part of the defendants. 9. The next contention raised by Mr. Nanak Chand was that the plaintiffs could not bring the suit because Harish Chandra, plaintiff 1, was an undisclosed principal and Wazir Chand was only an agent and had no right to sue. In regard to the claim for recovery of the amount paid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into by him on behalf of the principal and therefore he could sue for damages also. 11. Mr. Nanak Chand submits that Section 236 makes the suit of this kind incompetent. That section provides that if a person falsely contracts as an agent he is not entitled to the performance of the contract. The whole case of the defendants seems to be that the plaintiff was acting as an agent and not as a principal and therefore this section in my opinion is inapplicable. The suit, therefore, has been rightly brought. 12. As to the quantum of damages there is the evidence of witnesses to show that there was rise in prices after the contract of sale had been entered into. Kishan Chand P. W. 1 stated that on 28-5-1948 when he entered into a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
