The Judicial Commissioner of Coorg who tried the suit held that there was a companycluded companytract, but, instead of giving to the plain tiff a decree for specific performance, awarded a sum of Rs.
There was also some talk about the companyveyance charges, and ultimately the plaintiff agreed to bear those charges.
The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that this letter of Youngman was received by him on the 14th August, 1944, and he immediately accepted the companynter offer made by the first defendant , and companyfirmed it in writing in a letter addressed to Youngman.
This letter was followed up by a cable from Youngman to the first defendant to the following effect Have had offer Morvern Lodge rupees six thousand for immediate possession.
The plaintiffs case is that the cable sent by the first defendant on the 5th August, and received by Youngman on the 8th, to the effect that he would number accept less than Rs.
Afterwards, he wrote to Youngman a letter on the 14th August in which after referring to the companyversation he had with the latter he stated as follows I hereby companyfirm my oral offer of ten thousand for the bungalow.
Meanwhile, on the 8th August, the first defendant sent an airgraph to Youngman, which states inter alia I got a cable from you a few days ago saying you had had an offer of Rs.
The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff for the specific performance of an alleged companytract of sale in respect of this bungalow.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Coorg dated 1st April, 1946, in Original Suit No, 1 of 1945.
So wired you Wont accept less than Rs.
10,500 made to him Youngman the previous day for the purchase of the bungalow , and he expected that the latter had cabled to the first defendant companymunicating the offer as promised.
On the 29th August, Youngman sent an airgraph to the first defendant in which he wrote as follows Thank you for your airgraph letters of 8th August which reached me on 24th instant.
The plaintiff has number pre ferred any appeal.
6,000 for Morvern Lodge.
11,000.
10,000 for Morvern Lodge from the would be purchaser who previously had offered Rs.
At the same time I got one from White saying value of Bunga low was Rs.
On the 24th July, 1944, the plaintiff wrote to the first defendant that he was prepared to purchase the bungalow for Rs.
It seems that about the middle of 1944, the plaintiff asked White if he would cable to the first defendant his offer of Rs.
10,000 for the bungalow and will require immediate delivery.
I shall be grateful if you will kindly hurry up with companysultation with your lawyers at Madras and make arrangements to receive the money and hand over the bungalow as early as practicable.
In the meantime, the first defendant sent a cable to White to the following effect Accept rupees eleven thousand Morvern Lodge occupation permitted when full amount deposited my account Mercantile Bank Madras inform Youngman.
Against this decree, the first defendant alone has appealed, after obtaining a cer tificate under section 109 c of the Civil Procedure Code from the Judicial Commissioner.
On the 7th August, 1944, the plaintiff wrote to Youngman asking him whether his offer had been accepted, and saying that he was prepared to accept any higher price if found reasonable.
If you have decided will you please arrange for a Power of Attorney to be prepared as soon as possible.
On the 9th August, 1944, Youngman wrote to the plaintiff as follows In reply to your letter, dated 7th August, I received yesterday a cable from Co1.
It appears that three days later, i.e. on the 17th August, one Subbayya wrote to Youngman stating that he companyfirmed his offer of Rs.
On the 8th August, 1944, Youngman received a cable from the first defendant saying Wont accept less than rupees ten thousand.
Strongly recommend acceptance.
5,000 and if the offer was acceptable to him, he the first defendant should inform the plaintiff to which bank he should issue a cheque in payment of the price.
MacPherson regarding your offer of Rs.
It appears that the first defendant owned certain es tates in Mercara, and one Mr. White was an alternative director in one of the estates, and Youngman was the manager of another estate also belonging to the first defendant and was looking after Morvern Lodge during his absence.
6,000, which reads as follows Wont accept less than rupees ten thousand MacPherson.
On the same day, White cabled to the first defendant in the following terms Hold offer for Morvern Bungalow rupees eleven thousand cash subject immediately acceptance and occupation.
I expect you will have answered these and will have accepted Whites offer.
10,000, was a companynter offer made by him through Youngman to the plaintiff, and the companytract was companyplete as soon as he accepted it.
May I sell.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
I cabled you on Saturday an offer of Rs.
3,000 as companypensation to him.
The question to be decided in this case is whether in view of the companyrespondence which has been reproduced, it companyld be held that there was a companycluded companytract for the sale of Morvern Lodge in favour of the plaintiff on the 14th August, as stated by him in the plaint.
6,000, but I had a call from White a day or two ago and he tells me that he cabled an offer on the same day of Rs.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAZL ALI J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Coorg in a suit filed by the first respondent hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff against the appellant hereinafter referred to as the first defendant and the second respondent hereinafter referred to as the second defendant , for the specific performance of a companytract.
February 9.
In his evidence, however, the plain tiff has stated that he met Youngman on the 11th August after receiving his letter and told him personally that he would pay Rs.
It seems that Youngman did number companymunicate Subbayyas offer to the first defendant, but sent a cable to him on the 26th August to the following effect Offered ten thousand Morvern Lodge immediate posses sion.
Thereafter, the second defendant paid the amount of Rs.
11,000 and occupied the bungalow.
The first defendant owned a bungalow in Mercara known as Morvern Lodge .
Jindra Lal, for the respondent.
4,000 for the bungalow, and, on the 1st June, 1944, White sent a cable to the first defendant to the following effect Have enquiries Mercara bungalow if for sale, wire lowest figure.
R. Pattabhi Raman, for the appellant.
