It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was discharged from suretyship under Sections 135 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act.
The companytention was negatived by the Additional District Judge, Dewas and by the High Court on appeal.
The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
The suit was accordingly decreed.
1 of 1956 in The Court of the Additional District judge, Dewas, to recover damages sustained by him companysequent on alleged wrongful attachment and seizure by the forest authoritiess.
The High Court hold that the agreement had been ratified by the Raj Pramukh and had also been acced upon by the parties.
16 of 1959 affirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge.
A memorandum of cross objections filed by the plaintiff in regard to the plea of discharge was dismissed as numberargument was advanced in support of the cross objection.
93,000/ in certain instalments.
Melaram companymitted default in payment of the instalments.
At the expiry of the period for which he was the companytractor, the appellant was entitled to remove the timber which he had already cut but which was still lying unremoved in the companype.
The Trial Court rejected the plea of discharge from suretyship but upheld the plea based on number companypliance with the provision of Article 299 of the Constitution.
The appellant filed Civil Suit No.
93,000/ .
Dewas in Civil Suit No.
The appellant, the brother of Melaram, executed a surely bond guaranteeing the payment of the instalments required to be paid by Melaram under the agreement.
The decision of the Additional District Judge, Dewas, was rendered on 6th December, 1958 and the High Court affirmed the decision on 3rd May, 1963.
The Government was, therefore, entitled to enforce the same.
A sum of Rs.
As the Government was attempting to recover the amount from the surety, namely the appellant, he filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a declaration that the agreement between Melaram and the Government and the surety bond executed by the appellant were illegal and unenforceable The companytention was that the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution had number been companyplied with.
The High Court upheld the plea of res judicata and allowed the appeal.
During the pendence of the appeal the defendant was permitted to raise an additional plea that the suit was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in first appeal No.
The companype was knocked down in favour of Melaram for a sum of Rs.
One of the questions raised by the appellant in that suit was that the agreement between Melaram and the Government was in companytravention of Article 299 of the Constitution of India as the agreement Was number made by the Divisional Forest Officer, in the name of the Raj Pramukh of the State of Madhya Bharat.
38,500/ was due from Melaram to the Government.
Before the appellant companyld remove the timber the Forest authorities attached and seized the timber on the ground that he was liable, as a surety to pay the amount which was due by Melaram.
An appeal was preferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
1 of 1956.
The agreement was also signed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nimawar.
We may, at this juncture refer to the for facts which gave rise to the plea of res judicate Consequention the default companymitted by Melaram the agreement was terminated and for the remaining period of the companytract i.e. 16th March 1953 to 30th June 1953, there was a reauction and the appellant himself became the companytractor for the period.
Melaram executed an agreement undertaking to pay the sum of Rs.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Melaram, brother of the appellant was the highest bidder at an auction of a forest companype.
