Skip to content


Sheikh Farid Bakhsh Vs. Hargulal Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937All46; 166Ind.Cas.631
AppellantSheikh Farid Bakhsh
RespondentHargulal Singh
Excerpt:
.....[deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - it is, however, argued that on the pleadings of the parties the-first question for determination was whether the purchaser selected by the plaintiff failed to perform his contract, and there being no such finding, the suit could not be decreed......cause court judge where the plaintiff is recorded as having said that he was engaged as an agent for the sale of the house. a judge of small causes is not required to record the evidence in extenso, but he takes short notes. the statement-contained in the plaint is quite clear, and it says that all that the plaintiff was required to do was to bring a purchaser willing to purchase the property on the-terms agreed upon between the parties.2. the letter sent by farid bakhsh also makes it clear that he assured the plaintiff that a commission of 3 per cent would be paid for getting the transaction settled. where the remuneration of an agent is payable upon the performance by him of a definite undertaking, he is entitled to be paid that remuneration as soon as he has substantially done.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application in revision by the defendant against whom a suit for the recovery of Rs. 179-8-0 has been decreed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Meerut. The suit was by one Hargulal Singh for the recovery of commission. It was alleged in the plaint that in the month of June 1932 the defendant had engaged the plaintiff as his agent and had requested the plaintiff that he should find put a purchaser for the defendant's shop and settle the sale thereof. The plaintiff then went on to say that he arranged for the sale of the defendant's shop with Shanti Sarup and others, and on 15th July 1932 earnest money was paid by Shanti Sarup to the defendant. In support of his contention the plaintiff filed a letter said to have been sent by Farid Bakhsh to the plaintiff on 14th July 1932. In the Court below it was alleged on behalf of the defendant that the letter was a forgery. The learned Judge of the Court below has come to the conclusion that the-letter was a genuine letter and was signed by the defendant for himself and as mukhtar-I-am of his sister. It is not open to-the applicant before us to contest this finding of fact. It is, however, argued that on the pleadings of the parties the-first question for determination was whether the purchaser selected by the plaintiff failed to perform his contract, and there being no such finding, the suit could not be decreed. It is true that there is no such finding by the Court below, but we are of the opinion that it is not necessary that there should be such a finding. The plaintiff asserted that the contract between him and the defendant was that if the plaintiff brought a purchaser willing to purchase the property, and if the negotiations for the sale were completed with that purchaser, then the commission became due. Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the statement of the plaintiff as recorded by the-Small Cause Court Judge where the plaintiff is recorded as having said that he was engaged as an agent for the sale of the house. A Judge of Small Causes is not required to record the evidence in extenso, but he takes short notes. The statement-contained in the plaint is quite clear, and it says that all that the plaintiff was required to do was to bring a purchaser willing to purchase the property on the-terms agreed upon between the parties.

2. The letter sent by Farid Bakhsh also makes it clear that he assured the plaintiff that a commission of 3 per cent would be paid for getting the transaction settled. Where the remuneration of an agent is payable upon the performance by him of a definite undertaking, he is entitled to be paid that remuneration as soon as he has substantially done all that he undertook to do, even if the transaction in respect of which the remuneration is claimed falls through provided that it does not fall through in consequence of any act or default of the agent : see Bowstead on Agency, Edn. 6, p. 201. In the present case the remuneration of the agent was for the definite undertaking given by him that he would bring about a purchaser, willing to purchase the property of the defendant and the mere fact that the transaction fell through-it is of no consequence even if it fell through on account of the default of the purchaser-would not disentitle the agent from claiming the remuneration, because it is clear that the contract did not fall through in consequence of any act or default of the plaintiff. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that there is no force in this application, and we dismiss it with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //