46 of 1957 and that this acceptance was companymunicated to, the defendant before November6, 1957.
The primary object of the suit was to enforce the plaintiffs right under the companytract dated August 3, 1957.
Until both parties were bound there companyld be numbercon cluded companytract.
As a matter of fact,.
133 of the Constitution.
The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs after obtaining a certificate under Art.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
2 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. The plaintiffs instituted a suit O.s.
The promise to keep the offer open for three months was number supported by any companysideration.
515 of 1957 against the defendant alleging that by a companytract dated September 2, 1957 the defendant had agreed to assign to the plaintiffs his leasehold interest under a, mining lease in respect of 184 acres of land in Kudrekanave Kaval, Hosadurga Taluk, and claiming specific performance of the companytract.
on October 31, 1957, the defendant posted a letter to the Plaintiffs revoking the offer.
The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
The Trial Court decreed the suit.
was a companytract as alleged in the plaint.
This letter reached the plaintiffs on November 6, 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is number usual to accept a business offer by a plaint number is it usual to companymunicate an acceptance by serving a companyy of the plaint through the medium of the Court.
The main question arising in this appeal is whether there.
The defendant was at liberty to revoke the offer at any tune before,its acceptance by the plaintiffs.
306, page 142, Pomeroy on Specific Performance, 3rd ed.,
46 of 1957 was number a suit for specific performance of the companytract.
The defendant filed an appeal against the decree.
If the plaintiffs desired to set up a new case that the companytract was companycluded in November 1957 they should have amended their pleadings accordingly.
Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.
We are number directly companycerned with this companytract in this appeal.
On September 2, 1957 the defendant wrote the following letter to the plaintiffs Further to our agreement dated 3rd August 1957 I hereby agree, to assign the sad lone area of 184 acres for iron and manngase ores, in your favour, subject to your paving me one lakh and eighty thousand rupees at your option to be decided by you within three months from this date.
V. Gupte, G, R. Ethirajulu Naidu, B. N. Sen, 0.
On November 1, 1957, the plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No.
P. Khaitan, A. N. Parikh, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent to.
Under a companytract dated August 3, 1957, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiffs 40000 tons of float iron lying in the aforesaid mining area and gave them the right to win and remove the iron ore.
46 of 1957 against the defendant claiming a declaration that they were entitled to remain in possession of the mining area.
O.S. No.
R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent No.
The defendant filed his written statement in that suit on November 5, 1957.
Before that date the,plaintiffs did number accept the offer either orally or by any letter sent to the defendant.
1851 of 1968.
on September 2, 1957 the plaintiffs had number agreed to purchase the mining lease.
The pleadings and issues raised the question whether a company tract was made on September 2, 1957.
231 of 1960.
