Sale of yarn and rebate relief: illegality failed because title completion was not proved within the prohibited area.

A sale of yarn was treated as an agreement to sell, so title would pass only on unconditional appropriation or delivery without reservation of disposal under the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts, the evidence did not establish that the sale was completed within Madras Province, and the party alleging illegality failed to discharge the burden of proof. The claim of illegality under the Madras Yarn (Dealers) Control Order, 1943 therefore failed. Relief by way of rebate under the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Contracts) Ordinance, 1944 was also unavailable because the statutory condition depended on delivery after the maximum price was fixed, and that timing requirement was not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contract for sale of yarn was illegal for want of a licence under the Madras Yarn (Dealers) Control Order, 1943, because the sale was completed within Madras Province; (ii) Whether the buyer was entitled to a rebate on account of the retrospective operation of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Contracts) Ordinance, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the contract for sale of yarn was illegal for want of a licence under the Madras Yarn (Dealers) Control Order, 1943, because the sale was completed within Madras Province.

Analysis: The contract was an agreement to sell, and under Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act title would pass only on unconditional appropriation of the goods or on delivery to a carrier without reservation of the right of disposal. The decisive factual question was whether the consignment at Pudukad was made to the buyer unconditionally or to the seller or his agent, but the evidence did not establish that the sale was completed within Madras Province. The burden of proving illegality lay on the defendant, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The contract was not proved to be illegal on the ground alleged.

Issue (ii): Whether the buyer was entitled to a rebate on account of the retrospective operation of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Contracts) Ordinance, 1944.

Analysis: Section 2 of the Ordinance granted relief only where delivery took place on or after the date on which the maximum price was fixed. On the facts found, the maximum price was fixed after the alleged completion of the sale, so the statutory condition for rebate was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The buyer was not entitled to any rebate under the Ordinance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the alleged illegality was not established and the claim for rebate was unavailable on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legality of a sale depends on the place of completion, the party asserting illegality must prove that title passed within the prohibited area; absent proof of unconditional appropriation or delivery without reservation of disposal, the transaction is not shown to be illegal, and a rebate under a price-control ordinance arises only when the statutory timing condition is met.

---