A.K. MATHUR, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirohi dated 30.10.1976. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff M/s. Nemi Chand Babulal a partnership firm doing business at Sumerpur, filed the present suit with the allegation that on 15. 2. 1969 he made an offer on trunk call to purchase two wagon loads of Moong at the rate of Rs. 100/- per bag of one quintal to first defendant M/s. Damyanti Corporation doing business at Madras. The goods were to be despatched from railway station, Vijaiwara to M/s Poochalal Pitambardas, Ahmedabad with destination railway station as Kankaria (Ahmedabad). The plaintiff took upon himself the guarantee of payment of price. It is alleged that the first defendant M/s. Damyanti Corporation accepted the offer and thereafter sent two contract notes Nos. 8025 and 8026 both dated 15.2. 1969 to the plaintiff confirming the agreement. On receiving the contract notes the plaintiff came to know that one wagon would be supplied by M/s. Krishna District Produce Marketing Board, Vijaiwara and the other wagon was to be supplied by M/s. T. Seetharamanjanul & sons. According to the plaintiff M/s. T. Seetharamanjanul & Co. supplied the stipulated article but M/s. Krishna District Produce Marketing Board failed to supply the contracted article in terms of the contract note No 8025. The plaintiff waited for some-time and thereafter sent telegrams to the first and second defendants and in pursuance of that telegram the second defendants by telegram informed the plaintiff that he did not enter into any agreement through the first defendant with the plaintiff. It is alleged that on 15.3. 1969 and near about the market rate of Moong at Madras became Rs. 115/- per quintal and at Ahmedabad at Rs. 120/-per quintal with the result that due to non-supply of goods by the second defendant he suffered a loss of Rs 3,300/- for 220 bags of Moong. The plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs. 10/- as telegram charges and Rs. 37/- as notice charges etc. It is alleged that the plaintiff did not know the second defendant but he knew the first defendant and he came to know about the identity of the second defendant when he received the contract note. Thus, the present suit was filed against M/s. Damyanti Corporation and M/s Krishna District Produce Marketing Board. 3. 37/- as notice charges etc. It is alleged that the plaintiff did not know the second defendant but he knew the first defendant and he came to know about the identity of the second defendant when he received the contract note. Thus, the present suit was filed against M/s. Damyanti Corporation and M/s Krishna District Produce Marketing Board. 3. The written statements were filed by both the defendants. The second defendant M/s Krishna District Produce Marketing Board, Vijaiwara denied to have entered into any agreement with the plaintiff for supply of Moong. He also denied that the first defendant acted on their behalf. 4. The second defendant also alleged that there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff. The first defendant in his written statement admitted the fact of trunk call and submitted that it is wrong to say that the first defendant was not liable to supply the goods to the plaintiff. It is alleged that he acted as Dalai of the plaintiff. Therefore, he was not liable to pay damages. The objection of jurisdiction was also raised. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 8 issues were framed. The learned Civil Judge held that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant. Therefore, the suit was dismissed against the second defendant. He however, decreed the suit against the first defendant on the basis of difference in the market price quoted and the price at which the goods were available at Madras i. e. Rs. 115/- Aggrieved against this M/s Damyanti Corporation filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and held that the trial court has rightly held that since there was no privity of contract with M/s. Krishna District Produce Marketing Board, Vijaiwara, therefore, M/s. Krishna District Produce Marketing Board cannot be held liable for the damages. The learned Additional District Judge upheld decree taking the difference of the market rate at Madras and affirmed the decree of the learned Civil Judge. Aggrieved against this judgment M/s. Damyanti Corporation has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. While admitting this second appeal two questions were framed by the learned Judge, which read as under: — "1. The learned Additional District Judge upheld decree taking the difference of the market rate at Madras and affirmed the decree of the learned Civil Judge. Aggrieved against this judgment M/s. Damyanti Corporation has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. While admitting this second appeal two questions were framed by the learned Judge, which read as under: — "1. Even if there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and second defendant. The court ought not to have dismissed the suit against the second defendant. 2. There is no evidence on the record that the market rate of Moong had risen to Rs. 115/- at Ahmedabad, the place where the commodity was to be delivered." 6. Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant has choosen to contest the second question seriously. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact an oral contract was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant M/s. Damyanti Corporation from Sumerpur. The plaintiff on telephone offered M/s. Damyanti Corporation for supply of aforesaid goods and the destination was Ahmedabad. Learned counsel submitted that the difference of the price should be taken either of Sumerpur where the contract took place and of Ahmedabad where the goods were to be despatched. But both the courts below have taken the price of the goods prevalent at Madras at the relevant time. Thus, learned counsel submitted that this criteria adopted by both the courts below is wholly wrong as the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages of the difference of the rates where the breach took place. Learned counsel submitted that the breach has taken place either at Sumerpur where the plaintiff contracted the oral agreement or at Ahmedabad where the goods were to reach. Thus, at best the market rate prevalent at Sumerpur or Ahmedabad could have been taken. Since the market rate of Moong has arisen at Madras and the same has been taken, therefore, this criteria adopted by the courts below is not correct. Learned counsel submitted that this submission is fully justified in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs. M/s. Harishchandra Dwarkadas (1). In the aforesaid case, a contract had been entered into between A and B for sale of certain canvas at Rs. 1/- per yard. The delivery was to be through railway receipt for Calcutta F.O.R. Kanpur. In the aforesaid case, a contract had been entered into between A and B for sale of certain canvas at Rs. 1/- per yard. The delivery was to be through railway receipt for Calcutta F.O.R. Kanpur. The railway receipt was to be delivered on 5.8.1947. This was, however, not done. Therefore B brought a suit for damages against A for breach of contract. B claimed that the rate of canvas in Calcutta on or about the date of breach was Rs. 1-8-3 per yard and therefore he was entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 0-8-3 per yard. In these circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed as under:— "the buyer B had purchased canvas in this case for re-sale. It was open to Bin this case to sell the railway receipt as soon as it was received in Kanpur and there could be no inference from the mere fact that the goods were to be sent to Calcutta that they were meant only for sale in Calcutta. It was open to B to sell them anywhere he liked. Therefore this. was not a case where it could be said that the parties knew when they made the contract that the goods were meant for sale in Calcutta alone and thus the difference between the price in Calcutta at the date of the breach and the contract price would be the measure of damages as the likely result from the breach. Therefore the measure of damages had to be calculated as they would naturally arise in the usual course of things from such breach. Thus B had to prove the market rate at Kanpur on the date of breach for similar goods and that would fix the amount of damages, in case that rate had gone above the contract rate on the date of breach. As B had failed to prove the rate for similar canvas in Kanpur on the date of breach he was not entitled to any damages in the circumstances." 7. Similarly is the position in present case also, the plaintiff has claimed differences of rates at Madras. The rate contracted was Rs. 100/- per bag of one quintal. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the differences of Rs. 15/- per bag. Both the courts below should not have taken the rates of Madras as the actual breach took place at Ahmedabad in the present case. The rate contracted was Rs. 100/- per bag of one quintal. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the differences of Rs. 15/- per bag. Both the courts below should not have taken the rates of Madras as the actual breach took place at Ahmedabad in the present case. The present case is almost analogous to M/s. Murlidhar Chiranjilal (supra). Therefore, the same reasoning is applicable in the present case and both the courts below have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in taking the market rate of Madras i. e- Rs. 115/- This could not have been done. Though the appellate court has quoted the price of Ahmedabad as Rs. 120/- but I have gone through the statement of the plaintiff P. W. 1 Ramlal which was read out before me from the certified copy. The statement of the witnesses are not available on record as the same appear to have been weeded out. But the statement of the plaintiff was read over before me in the presence of Mr. Bhandari, therefore there is no difficulty in accepting that the plaintiff has failed to prove the market price prevalent at Ahmedabad at the relevant time. 8. In the result, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on account of the failure of the plaintiff to prove the market rate for determining the damages at the place of breach i. e. Ahmedabad. 9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.