Skip to content


M.S. Kailasanada Sarma Vs. the President, District Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad211
AppellantM.S. Kailasanada Sarma
RespondentThe President, District Board
Excerpt:
- - reddi for the respondent contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not deliver 286 measures of husked rice, he must be deemed to have broken the contract, and under clause 5 of the contract, if the plaintiff failed to take paddy to be husked or failed to measure the entire rice due for the paddy taken by him within a week thereof, or withheld some quantity of paddy, then the defendant was entitled to cancel the contract, and that this clause applied to this case and that the district board was entitled to cancel the contract inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to deliver 286 measures of rice......portion of the plaintiff's claim. the plaintiff is the petitioner herein. he sued for damages for breach of contract by the defendant, the district board, tanjore. the agreement between the parties is embodied in ex. 13. under the agreement the chatram manager had to supply paddy for being husked. the plaintiff was to husk the paddy and deliver it. there is no dispute as to quantities. the subordinate judge found that both the parties broke the contract and the plaintiff was not entitled to damage. the contention of mr. ranganadha ayyar for the petitioner is that his act did not amount to a breach of contract. sir k. v. reddi for the respondent contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not deliver 286 measures of husked rice, he must be deemed to have broken the contract, and under.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The decree was for a small portion of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He sued for damages for breach of contract by the defendant, the District Board, Tanjore. The agreement between the parties is embodied in Ex. 13. Under the agreement the chatram manager had to supply paddy for being husked. The plaintiff was to husk the paddy and deliver it. There is no dispute as to quantities. The Subordinate Judge found that both the parties broke the contract and the plaintiff was not entitled to damage. The contention of Mr. Ranganadha Ayyar for the petitioner is that his act did not amount to a breach of contract. Sir K. V. Reddi for the respondent contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not deliver 286 measures of husked rice, he must be deemed to have broken the contract, and under Clause 5 of the contract, if the plaintiff failed to take paddy to be husked or failed to measure the entire rice due for the paddy taken by him within a week thereof, or withheld some quantity of paddy, then the defendant was entitled to cancel the contract, and that this clause applied to this case and that the District Board was entitled to cancel the contract inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to deliver 286 measures of rice. Strange enough Ex. 3 was executed some four months after the contract was actually entered into. The breach, if any, was before the date of Ex. 13. There is nothing to show that on the date of Ex. 13 the plaintiff was called upon to deliver the paddy yet to be delivered. If there was a breach the defendant did not avail himself of it and if he wanted to avail himself of it, he should have given notice of cancellation of the contract to the plaintiff on the ground that he did not deliver the full measure of paddy. That he did not choose to do. It is conceded that the chatram manager gave paddy to others for husking. That is no ground for holding that the District Board gave notice of cancellation of the contract to plaintiff. When a party to a contract is entitled to cancel the contract by reason of the breach by the other, notice of cancellation should be given to the other party. If no notice is given then it must be deemed that the breach was condoned and that the contract was allowed to continue. In this case the District Board not having given notice of breach of contract, the contract must be held to be subsisting. In this view of the law, I set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge only so far as the question of damages to plaintiff is concerned. As regards the value of the paddy to be delivered, the defendant must be given credit for Rs. 114-6-5. This amount will be deducted from any amount that may be due to the plaintiff. I set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to hold an' enquiry into the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the breach of contract by the defendant and after ascertaining the amount he will give a decree to the plaintiff for the damages and the deposit amount, namely, Rs. 200 minus the amount of Rs. 114-6-5. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest from the date of suit notice, Ex. 21. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this application.


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