Judgment :- 1. The 2nd of the two plaintiffs in O.S. 197 of 1121 on the file of the Anjikaimal District Court has brought this appeal against the dismissal of this suit which was for damages for alleged breach of five forward contracts made by the first defendant to supply groundnut oil to the first plaintiff. The factum of the contracts and of non-delivery of the goods pursuant thereto was admitted by the defence and the plea was that the contracts were illegal and unenforceable as they were prohibited by the Vegetable Oils and Oil Cakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order 1119 promulgated by the Government of Cochin on 4th April 1944 under R. 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules made applicable to Cochin by the Defence of India Proclamation 8 of 1115. Though there was controversy in the Court below upon various matters the only point raised in the appeal is that the contracts in question are excluded from the operation of the said Order by a notification issued by the Government under clause 5 which provides that Government may by notification in the Cochin Government Gazette exclude any contract or class of contracts from the operation of the Order and such a notification was issued, in the fact it accompanied the Order both being of even date. The relevant part of the notification is as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause 5 of the Vegetable Oils and Oil Cakes (Forward Contract Prohibition) Order 1119, Government are pleased to exclude the following classes of contracts from the provisions of the said order, namely: 2) Forward contracts for specific qualities or types of any article to which the Vegetable Oils and Oil Cakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order 1119, applies and for specific delivery at a specified price, delivery orders, railway receipts or bills of lading against which contracts are not transferable to third parties." (See page 364-65 of Rules and Notifications under Enactments of Cochin, 1119). This Order and notification are word for word the same as the Vegetable Oils and Oil Cakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, and the Notification dated 12th January, 1944, issued by the Central Government under powers given to them under clause 5 of the Order. If the contracts come within the excluded category they are enforceable, otherwise not. 2. This Order and notification are word for word the same as the Vegetable Oils and Oil Cakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, and the Notification dated 12th January, 1944, issued by the Central Government under powers given to them under clause 5 of the Order. If the contracts come within the excluded category they are enforceable, otherwise not. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted before us that there have been delivery orders in connection with these contracts. This point which is disputed is sought to be established by reference to the appellant's books of accounts which were produced by him in the court below for the purpose of proving the quantum of damages. The question that there have been delivery orders in this case was not raised in the court below. The opposite party had therefore no opportunity to meet that case and explain the circumstances which may appear to be against him. The court below did not advert to that aspect, as it was not urged before it. Being a question of fact we cannot allow the respondent to raise it for the first time in appeal. 3. The language of the notification must certainly be admitted to be unhappy and offers scope for different interpretations. The one contended for by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is that the last part relating to the non-transferability to third parties applies only to cases where delivery orders, railway receipts or bills of lading exist and that in cases where such documents are absent non-transferability cannot appear and need not form a term of the contract in order to admit of its being brought within the ambit of the exclusions. This part of the notification has been the subject of judicial interpretation and the view taken is uniform that the exclusion would apply only to cases of contracts where there are delivery orders, railway receipts or bills of lading and they show that they are not transferable to third parties. (See (1948) 4 DLR Born. 7; (1949) 85 Cal.L.J.136; (1950) MWN 389). (See (1948) 4 DLR Born. 7; (1949) 85 Cal.L.J.136; (1950) MWN 389). In a later case of the Madras High Court reported at page 679 of the same volume Satyanarayana Rao, J. suggests that to a contract which contemplates spot delivery that is to say, when there would not be documents of the kind mentioned in the notification, it may not be right to apply the last part of the notification. The learned judge who constituted a Division Bench with Chandra Reddy, J. did not however dissent from the view taken in that High Court by another Division Bench in the aforesaid case, which had in its turn followed a still earlier Division Bench decision. Learned counsel for the appellant places before us Satyanarayana Rao, J.'s suggestion in that case for our acceptance. Indeed that was all the argument. With respect we find ourselves unable to agree. The reason for prohibiting forward contracts was to prevent speculation and consequent inflation in prices resulting in diminution and uncertainty of supplies of commodities essential for the life of the community. Traffic in contracts was, therefore, prohibited by the Order while traffic in commodities was permitted by the exclusion in the notification. It appears to us that if the point that the mischief whose prevention and the object whose achievement which were the aims of the legislature required a prohibition and a permission be borne in mind there would be no difficulty in interpreting the Order and the notification. If traffic in contracts ought not to happen its prohibition cannot be confined to contracts evidenced by a particular document or to be performed in a particular manner. Transfer of a contract for which there is no document of the kind mentioned in the Notification is still a traffic in contract and that is what was happened in the present case where the appellant claims as the transferee of the contract from the first plaintiff. If the real contracting party can transfer the rights under the contract, the transferee may in his turn effect a further transfer and so on until the arrival of the due date for delivery just in the same way as transfers could be made by negotiations or assignments of documents mentioned in the notification. If the real contracting party can transfer the rights under the contract, the transferee may in his turn effect a further transfer and so on until the arrival of the due date for delivery just in the same way as transfers could be made by negotiations or assignments of documents mentioned in the notification. We are clear that the exclusion can apply only to cases where there are delivery orders, railway receipts or bills of lading in receipt of contracts and they on their face show that the contracts are not transferable to third parties. 4. It follows that the decree of the District Judge is correct and the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Dismissed.