ABDULLA AHMED versus ANIMENDRA KISSEN MITTER

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 14-03-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA, M. PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, SIR SYED FAZL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
l[areh li. 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ABDULLA AHMED 
v. 
ANIMENDRA KISSEN MITTER. 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA c . .1., SAIYID F AZL ALI, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and 
S. R. DAS JJ.) 
Oontmct-.{gencu-Estate 
b1"0ker-Authorit11 to ' 11tgotiate a 
sale' and '3ecure purcha.se1· '-Whether empower& broker to conclw11 
contrnct-Constr"-Otion of contract~Broker finding out purchaur 
ready awl willing to buy for pries fixed by principal-Principal 
concl,,.ding contract with same purchaser for lower price-Broker'1 
right to commission-Powers of e&late agents. 
The appellant, •u estate broker, 
was 
employed by the 
respondent by a letter .dated 5th May, 1943, to negotiate a· sale 
of a certain property on the terms mentioned_ in a commission 
note which ran as follows: "J ...... do hereby authorise yon to 
negotiate the sale of my property 27, Amratolla Street, free from 
all encumbrances at a price not less than Rs. 1,00,000. I shall 
make out a good title to the property. If you succeed in secur-
ing a huyer for Rs. 1,00,000, I shall pay you Rs. 1,000 as your 
remuneration. If the price exceeds Rs. 1,05,000 e.nd does not 
exceed Rs. 1,10,000, I shall pay you the whole of the excess over 
Rs. 1,05,000 in addition to your remunemtion of Rs. 1,000 as 
~tated above. 
In ce.se you can secure a buyer at a price exceed· 
ing Rs. 1,10,000 I shall pay you twenty·five · pet cent. of the 
excess amount over Rs. 1,10,000 in addition to Rs. 6,000 as stated 
1tbove. 
This authority will remain in force for one month 
from !late." 
In pursuance of this contract the appellant found 
two persons rearly and willing to purchase the property for 
Rs. 1,10,000 on the 2nd June and by letters exchanged with 
them he purportecl to conclude the contract for the sale of the 
property, and on the 3rd June communicated the same to the 
responrlent. 
The respondent, however, cancelled the authority 
or the appellant on the 9th June and on the same date entered into 
an 
agreement 
\Vith 
a 
nominee of the 
said 
persons for a 
•ale of the property for Rs. 1,05,000 and eventually executerl 
a conveyance in their favour for Rs. 1,05,000. The appel-
lant institutecl a suit against the respondent for Rs. 6,000. 
Held, per KANIA C.J., FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI and 
DAS .J.T.-(i) that a house or estate agent is in a different position 
from a hroker at the Stock Exchange owing to the peculiarities or 
the p1·operty with which he has to deal, and an owner employing 
an estate agent should not, in the absence of clear words to that 
effect, be taken to have authorised him to conclude a contract or 
sale; but the lack of such authority is not inconsistent with an 
understanding that the agent is . .not to be entitled to his commis-
•ion unles• the owner and the purchase1· introduced by the agent 
4 
• 
) 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
31 
carried the transaction to completion; (ii) that even j.f 
the 
191JO 
commission note in the present case were to be construed as 
making payment of commission conditional on the completion of 
Abdulla Alimed 
the tre.nsaotion, the appellant having "negotiated the sale" and 
v. 
"secured buyers" who made a firm offe1· to buy for Rs. 1,10,000, 
Animendra 
acquired. the right to the payment of commission on the basis of 
Kis#n Mitter. 
that price subject only to the condition that the buyers should 
• complete the transaction of purchase and sale ; and as this 
condition was fulfilled when the buyers eventually purchased 
the property in question; the appellant's right to commission on 
that basis became absolute, and could not be affected by the 
circumstance that the respondent fo1· some reason of his own sold 
the property at a lower price. 
MAHAJAN J.-Under the terms of the commission note in the 
present case the appellant had authority to enter into a binding 
contract on behalf of the defendant, and, as he had entered 
i. 
into such a contract he was entitled to the commission of Rs. 6,000 
according· to the terms of the co~mission note. Even conceding 
that he had no such authority, under the terms of the commission 
note the agent was entitled to his remuneration as soon as he in· 
troduced a buyer ready and willing to purchase for the price fixed 
by the o'wner, whether the owner completed the transaction or not. 
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd. v. Cooper ([1941) A.O. 108) distin· 
guisbed. 
• 
Chadburn v. 1'rloore (67 L.T. 257), Rosenbaum v. Belson ((1900) 
2 Cb. 267), Durga Charan Mitra v. Rniendra Narain Sinh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.