Skip to content


Mulki Narayana Kammathi and ors. Vs. Kolathingal Kuni Moyi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad866
AppellantMulki Narayana Kammathi and ors.
RespondentKolathingal Kuni Moyi and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....by auction at rs. 35 a thousand. plaintiffs sued defendants for the amount of the loss on the re-sale. defendants denied the sale to them, but the subordinate judge made a decree for plaintiffs as sued for. defendants 2, 3 and 4 pray for revision.2. it is urged before me that there was no completed contract between the parties but only negotiations for the sale of the cocoanuts and that, even if defendants agreed to buy 25,000 cocoanuts at rs. 41 a thousand from plaintiffs, those cocoanuts were never ascertained and appropriated to the sale from among the cocoanuts in plaintiffs' warehouse. but on examining the record, i find that there is evidence, not only that defendant 4, on behalf of defendants, agreed to buy 25,000 cocoanuts at rs. 41, but also that he inspected the cocoanuts at.....
Judgment:

Reilly, J.

1. The plaintiffs allege that they sold 25,000 cocoanuts to defendants at Rs. 41 a thousand, that the defendants agreed to remove the cocoanuts from plaintiffs' warehouse within 4 days, that the defendants did not remove them and therefore plaintiffs after notice to defendants sold the cocoanuts by auction at Rs. 35 a thousand. Plaintiffs sued defendants for the amount of the loss on the re-sale. Defendants denied the sale to them, but the Subordinate Judge made a decree for plaintiffs as sued for. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 pray for revision.

2. It is urged before me that there was no completed contract between the parties but only negotiations for the sale of the cocoanuts and that, even if defendants agreed to buy 25,000 cocoanuts at Rs. 41 a thousand from plaintiffs, those cocoanuts were never ascertained and appropriated to the sale from among the cocoanuts in plaintiffs' warehouse. But on examining the record, I find that there is evidence, not only that defendant 4, on behalf of defendants, agreed to buy 25,000 cocoanuts at Rs. 41, but also that he inspected the cocoanuts at plaintiffs' warehouse, where they were stored in one lot and agreed to take that lot. The Subordinate Judge was entitled to find on that evidence, that the sale was complete.

3. The only other point urged for defendants is that plaintiffs had no right to resell the cocoanuts. The argument is that they could do that under Section 107 of the Contract Act, only if they had a lien on the eoooanuts and that in this ease they bad no lien, as it does not appear that any definite time was fixed for payment. For this defendant's vakil relies on Section 96 of the Contract Act. Under that section, if the sale was on credit and no time was fixed for delivery, then plaintiffs would have had no lien and defendants would have been entitled to immediate delivery. But in this case, the time for taking delivery passed and defendants repudiated the contract. If the sale was on credit, as appears to have been the case, defendants would have had the right to immediate delivery, against which plaintiffs could not have set up any lien. But as defendants failed to take delivery within the time fixed and repudiated the contract, they cannot take advantage of the provisions of Section 96, which give the buyer a right to delivery without payment in certain circumstances. The general provision of Section 95 of the Act giving the seller a lien on sold goods remaining in his possession has effect, unless some exception applies. In the present case, the Subordinate Judge was right in finding that plaintiffs were entitled to resell the cocoanuts and recover the loss from defendants.

4. The petition is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 and 2.


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