Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors
credit for Rs.399-5-6 on account of items Nos. 4 and 5 in the additional written statement representing two contingent bills for Rs.324-15-6 and Rs.74-6-0. The High Court also upheld the transit shortage allowed by the trial Court in favour of the defendants in respect of 412 maunds of paddy. The corresponding rice at an average extraction of 63 per cent as taken by the trial Court came to 259 maunds 22 seers 6 chittaks. The value thereof at the rate of Rs.16 per maund came to Rs.4153/-. A sum of 4153/- was deducted from the claim of the State with the result that the decree granted by the High Court in favour of the State was for Rupees 31,179/-.12. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit, viz., January, 1948 to January, 1949, should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State for 1946-47 were to be considered the deductions for that period should have been considered.13. The High Court said that the claims of either side prior to January, 1948 had to be left out of the purview of the suit on the pleadings of the parties. Yet the High Court allowed the defendants claim for the balance of old paddy of 1946-47. The appellant challenged this finding of the High Court on two grounds. First, it was said that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State. Second, if the claim of the State for 1946-47 were to be considered the deductions for that period in favour of the appellant should have been considered and allowed.14. The appellant in the written statement stated that the defendants received from the State 84174 maunds 16 seers 8 chittaks of paddy in 1948 and 940 maunds 20 seers in 1949. The total was 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks.The plaintiffs witness Nagendra Narain Singh said that the defendants were supplied in all a total of 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks of paddy for milling purpose. The plaintiffs witness further stated that the defendants supplied 48167 maunds 20 seers of rice. According to the plaintiff State the defendants should have supplied 53477 maunds 7 seers. The plaintiffs witness also stated that the rice and paddy account in the suit related to the period 1947-48 and 1948-49 though some paddy admittedly received by the defendants in the earlier year was carried forward to the account of the year 1947-48. The amount so carried forward was 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy as balance from the previous year. By the period 1947-48 is meant the calendar year 1948 and by the period 1948-49 is meant the calendar year 1949. Therefore on the evidence of the plaintiffs witness 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy were carried forward from a period prior to the year 1948. This quantity of 429 maunds 19 seers should therefore be deducted from 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks. The figure will be 84685 maunds 17 seers 8 chittaks.15. Leaving aside 17 seers 8 chittaks the round figure of 84685 maunds would be the amount of paddy delivered by the State. The rate of extraction of rice was alleged in the plaint to be 60 to 65 per cent. The trial Court on the evidence found that the rate of extraction of rice from paddy according to Exhibit 2 was 62 per cent. On that extraction rate of 62 per cent 84685 maunds would yield 52452 maunds of rice. The defendants delivered 48167 maunds. The balance quantity of 4285 maunds will be due by the defendants to the State. The High Court allowed the State value for 5309 maunds 27 seers of rice not delivered by the defendants to the State. That claim is set aside. Instead the State will be entitled to the value of 4285 maunds of rice not delivered by the appellant to the defendant No.3 and the State.16. The High Court was wrong in disallowing wholly the amounts which had been given to the defendants by the trial Court. Exhibit A-11 shows the various charges to which defendants No.3 was entitled. Exhibit E is the agreement between various milling agents and the State showing the various charges of the milling agents to which they were entitled to. The trial Court gave the defendants these charges. The High Court was wrong in disallowing the claims on account of cartage, shrinkage, difference in milling charges, stacking charges, commission charges, ferry charges. Whatever charges were payable to the defendants in that respect between January 1948 and January 1949 to which period the plaintiffs claim is limited should go to the credit of the defendants.17. The decree of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be dealt with in the light of the observations indicated hereinabove. The High Court will determine the amounts payable by the plaintiff State to the appellant and also by the appellant and defendant No.3 to the State.18. The High Court gave a decree in favour of the Stae and also against Purneshwari Rice Mill. Purneshwari Rice Mill is the lessor of the rice mill. The defendants viz., the appellant and respondent No.3 were lessees from Purneshwari Rice Mill.The lessors were not a party to the agreement with the State upon which the State filed the suit. The lesssor were not the purchasing and milling agents. There is no pleading making Purneshwari Rice Mill liable in respect of supply of rice. It would be strange to hold that the lessor were liable for the business of the lessees. The lease between the Purneshwari Rice Mill and the defendants shows that the business to be carried on by the lessees is that of the lessees and the lesor is not engaged in that business. Therefore, the decree against Purneshwari Rice Mill is unjustified and set aside.
1[ds]13. The High Court said that the claims of either side prior to January, 1948 had to be left out of the purview of the suit on the pleadings of the parties. Yet the High Court allowed the defendants claim for the balance of old paddy ofThe appellant challenged this finding of the High Court on two grounds. First, it was said that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State. Second, if the claim of the State forwere to be considered the deductions for that period in favour of the appellant should have been considered and allowed.14. The appellant in the written statement stated that the defendants received from the State 84174 maunds 16 seers 8 chittaks of paddy in 1948 and 940 maunds 20 seers in 1949. The total was 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks.The plaintiffs witness Nagendra Narain Singh said that the defendants were supplied in all a total of 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks of paddy for milling purpose. The plaintiffs witness further stated that the defendants supplied 48167 maunds 20 seers of rice. According to the plaintiff State the defendants should have supplied 53477 maunds 7 seers. The plaintiffs witness also stated that the rice and paddy account in the suit related to the period49 though some paddy admittedly received by the defendants in the earlier year was carried forward to the account of the yearThe amount so carried forward was 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy as balance from the previous year. By the periodis meant the calendar year 1948 and by the periodis meant the calendar year 1949. Therefore on the evidence of the plaintiffs witness 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy were carried forward from a period prior to the year 1948. This quantity of 429 maunds 19 seers should therefore be deducted from 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks. The figure will be 84685 maunds 17 seers 8 chittaks.15. Leaving aside 17 seers 8 chittaks the round figure of 84685 maunds would be the amount of paddy delivered by the State. The rate of extraction of rice was alleged in the plaint to be 60 to 65 per cent. The trial Court on the evidence found that the rate of extraction of rice from paddy according to Exhibit 2 was 62 per cent. On that extraction rate of 62 per cent 84685 maunds would yield 52452 maunds of rice. The defendants delivered 48167 maunds. The balance quantity of 4285 maunds will be due by the defendants to the State. The High Court allowed the State value for 5309 maunds 27 seers of rice not delivered by the defendants to the State. That claim is set aside. Instead the State will be entitled to the value of 4285 maunds of rice not delivered by the appellant to the defendant No.3 and the State.16. The High Court was wrong in disallowing wholly the amounts which had been given to the defendants by the trial Court. Exhibitshows the various charges to which defendants No.3 was entitled. Exhibit E is the agreement between various milling agents and the State showing the various charges of the milling agents to which they were entitled to. The trial Court gave the defendants these charges. The High Court was wrong in disallowing the claims on account of cartage, shrinkage, difference in milling charges, stacking charges, commission charges, ferry charges. Whatever charges were payable to the defendants in that respect between January 1948 and January 1949 to which period the plaintiffs claim is limited should go to the credit of the defendants.17. The decree of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be dealt with in the light of the observations indicated hereinabove. The High Court will determine the amounts payable by the plaintiff State to the appellant and also by the appellant and defendant No.3 to the State.18. The High Court gave a decree in favour of the Stae and also against Purneshwari Rice Mill. Purneshwari Rice Mill is the lessor of the rice mill. The defendants viz., the appellant and respondent No.3 were lessees from Purneshwari Rice Mill.The lessors were not a party to the agreement with the State upon which the State filed the suit. The lesssor were not the purchasing and milling agents. There is no pleading making Purneshwari Rice Mill liable in respect of supply of rice. It would be strange to hold that the lessor were liable for the business of the lessees. The lease between the Purneshwari Rice Mill and the defendants shows that the business to be carried on by the lessees is that of the lessees and the lesor is not engaged in that business. Therefore, the decree against Purneshwari Rice Mill is unjustified and set aside.
### Instruction:
Hypothesize the court's verdict (affirmation (1) or negation (0) of the appeal), and then clarify this hypothesis by interpreting significant sentences from the case proceeding.

### Input:
credit for Rs.399-5-6 on account of items Nos. 4 and 5 in the additional written statement representing two contingent bills for Rs.324-15-6 and Rs.74-6-0. The High Court also upheld the transit shortage allowed by the trial Court in favour of the defendants in respect of 412 maunds of paddy. The corresponding rice at an average extraction of 63 per cent as taken by the trial Court came to 259 maunds 22 seers 6 chittaks. The value thereof at the rate of Rs.16 per maund came to Rs.4153/-. A sum of 4153/- was deducted from the claim of the State with the result that the decree granted by the High Court in favour of the State was for Rupees 31,179/-.12. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit, viz., January, 1948 to January, 1949, should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State for 1946-47 were to be considered the deductions for that period should have been considered.13. The High Court said that the claims of either side prior to January, 1948 had to be left out of the purview of the suit on the pleadings of the parties. Yet the High Court allowed the defendants claim for the balance of old paddy of 1946-47. The appellant challenged this finding of the High Court on two grounds. First, it was said that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State. Second, if the claim of the State for 1946-47 were to be considered the deductions for that period in favour of the appellant should have been considered and allowed.14. The appellant in the written statement stated that the defendants received from the State 84174 maunds 16 seers 8 chittaks of paddy in 1948 and 940 maunds 20 seers in 1949. The total was 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks.The plaintiffs witness Nagendra Narain Singh said that the defendants were supplied in all a total of 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks of paddy for milling purpose. The plaintiffs witness further stated that the defendants supplied 48167 maunds 20 seers of rice. According to the plaintiff State the defendants should have supplied 53477 maunds 7 seers. The plaintiffs witness also stated that the rice and paddy account in the suit related to the period 1947-48 and 1948-49 though some paddy admittedly received by the defendants in the earlier year was carried forward to the account of the year 1947-48. The amount so carried forward was 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy as balance from the previous year. By the period 1947-48 is meant the calendar year 1948 and by the period 1948-49 is meant the calendar year 1949. Therefore on the evidence of the plaintiffs witness 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy were carried forward from a period prior to the year 1948. This quantity of 429 maunds 19 seers should therefore be deducted from 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks. The figure will be 84685 maunds 17 seers 8 chittaks.15. Leaving aside 17 seers 8 chittaks the round figure of 84685 maunds would be the amount of paddy delivered by the State. The rate of extraction of rice was alleged in the plaint to be 60 to 65 per cent. The trial Court on the evidence found that the rate of extraction of rice from paddy according to Exhibit 2 was 62 per cent. On that extraction rate of 62 per cent 84685 maunds would yield 52452 maunds of rice. The defendants delivered 48167 maunds. The balance quantity of 4285 maunds will be due by the defendants to the State. The High Court allowed the State value for 5309 maunds 27 seers of rice not delivered by the defendants to the State. That claim is set aside. Instead the State will be entitled to the value of 4285 maunds of rice not delivered by the appellant to the defendant No.3 and the State.16. The High Court was wrong in disallowing wholly the amounts which had been given to the defendants by the trial Court. Exhibit A-11 shows the various charges to which defendants No.3 was entitled. Exhibit E is the agreement between various milling agents and the State showing the various charges of the milling agents to which they were entitled to. The trial Court gave the defendants these charges. The High Court was wrong in disallowing the claims on account of cartage, shrinkage, difference in milling charges, stacking charges, commission charges, ferry charges. Whatever charges were payable to the defendants in that respect between January 1948 and January 1949 to which period the plaintiffs claim is limited should go to the credit of the defendants.17. The decree of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be dealt with in the light of the observations indicated hereinabove. The High Court will determine the amounts payable by the plaintiff State to the appellant and also by the appellant and defendant No.3 to the State.18. The High Court gave a decree in favour of the Stae and also against Purneshwari Rice Mill. Purneshwari Rice Mill is the lessor of the rice mill. The defendants viz., the appellant and respondent No.3 were lessees from Purneshwari Rice Mill.The lessors were not a party to the agreement with the State upon which the State filed the suit. The lesssor were not the purchasing and milling agents. There is no pleading making Purneshwari Rice Mill liable in respect of supply of rice. It would be strange to hold that the lessor were liable for the business of the lessees. The lease between the Purneshwari Rice Mill and the defendants shows that the business to be carried on by the lessees is that of the lessees and the lesor is not engaged in that business. Therefore, the decree against Purneshwari Rice Mill is unjustified and set aside.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
13. The High Court said that the claims of either side prior to January, 1948 had to be left out of the purview of the suit on the pleadings of the parties. Yet the High Court allowed the defendants claim for the balance of old paddy ofThe appellant challenged this finding of the High Court on two grounds. First, it was said that any claim prior to the period alleged in the suit should not have been taken into consideration in dealing with the claim of the State. Second, if the claim of the State forwere to be considered the deductions for that period in favour of the appellant should have been considered and allowed.14. The appellant in the written statement stated that the defendants received from the State 84174 maunds 16 seers 8 chittaks of paddy in 1948 and 940 maunds 20 seers in 1949. The total was 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks.The plaintiffs witness Nagendra Narain Singh said that the defendants were supplied in all a total of 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks of paddy for milling purpose. The plaintiffs witness further stated that the defendants supplied 48167 maunds 20 seers of rice. According to the plaintiff State the defendants should have supplied 53477 maunds 7 seers. The plaintiffs witness also stated that the rice and paddy account in the suit related to the period49 though some paddy admittedly received by the defendants in the earlier year was carried forward to the account of the yearThe amount so carried forward was 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy as balance from the previous year. By the periodis meant the calendar year 1948 and by the periodis meant the calendar year 1949. Therefore on the evidence of the plaintiffs witness 429 maunds 19 seers of paddy were carried forward from a period prior to the year 1948. This quantity of 429 maunds 19 seers should therefore be deducted from 85114 maunds 36 seers 8 chittaks. The figure will be 84685 maunds 17 seers 8 chittaks.15. Leaving aside 17 seers 8 chittaks the round figure of 84685 maunds would be the amount of paddy delivered by the State. The rate of extraction of rice was alleged in the plaint to be 60 to 65 per cent. The trial Court on the evidence found that the rate of extraction of rice from paddy according to Exhibit 2 was 62 per cent. On that extraction rate of 62 per cent 84685 maunds would yield 52452 maunds of rice. The defendants delivered 48167 maunds. The balance quantity of 4285 maunds will be due by the defendants to the State. The High Court allowed the State value for 5309 maunds 27 seers of rice not delivered by the defendants to the State. That claim is set aside. Instead the State will be entitled to the value of 4285 maunds of rice not delivered by the appellant to the defendant No.3 and the State.16. The High Court was wrong in disallowing wholly the amounts which had been given to the defendants by the trial Court. Exhibitshows the various charges to which defendants No.3 was entitled. Exhibit E is the agreement between various milling agents and the State showing the various charges of the milling agents to which they were entitled to. The trial Court gave the defendants these charges. The High Court was wrong in disallowing the claims on account of cartage, shrinkage, difference in milling charges, stacking charges, commission charges, ferry charges. Whatever charges were payable to the defendants in that respect between January 1948 and January 1949 to which period the plaintiffs claim is limited should go to the credit of the defendants.17. The decree of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to be dealt with in the light of the observations indicated hereinabove. The High Court will determine the amounts payable by the plaintiff State to the appellant and also by the appellant and defendant No.3 to the State.18. The High Court gave a decree in favour of the Stae and also against Purneshwari Rice Mill. Purneshwari Rice Mill is the lessor of the rice mill. The defendants viz., the appellant and respondent No.3 were lessees from Purneshwari Rice Mill.The lessors were not a party to the agreement with the State upon which the State filed the suit. The lesssor were not the purchasing and milling agents. There is no pleading making Purneshwari Rice Mill liable in respect of supply of rice. It would be strange to hold that the lessor were liable for the business of the lessees. The lease between the Purneshwari Rice Mill and the defendants shows that the business to be carried on by the lessees is that of the lessees and the lesor is not engaged in that business. Therefore, the decree against Purneshwari Rice Mill is unjustified and set aside.
