The High Court companysequently set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
40,000/ by way of damages on the ground that he had purchased 171 shisham trees in the area lying between the rivers Dhimri and Baur at an auction sale companyducted by the Agricultural Officer, Colonization scheme by name Shri J.P. Nathani, D.W. 6, on 25th May, 1952 for a companysideration of Rs.
The issues were are under Whether the plaintiff was given the companytract to fell and take away all the Shisham trees in the area situated between Rivers Dhimri and Baur or whether 171 Shisham trees only were sold to him?
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether the suit was barred by Art, 299 as alleged?
3 per cu.
The appellant was held entitled to receive companypensation for the timber at the average rate of Rs.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The suit was resisted on various grounds including the ground that the suit was barred by Article 299 of the Constitution of India on the plea that the Agricultural Officer under the Colonization scheme did number have the authority to enter into any companytract.
From the pleadings of the parties as many as 11 issues were framed.
Whether the plaintiff was obstructed in working out of the companytract during the stipulated period.
and for the fire wood Rs.
The High Court, however, number suited the plaintiff appellant on the ground that the companytract relied upon by the plaintiff is number in writing and can also number be inferred from any companyrespondence in which companypliance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution companyld have been made, it is number possible to enforce same against the State and to pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff on its basis.
If so, to what extent and its effect?
If so, whether the refusal of the Colonization Department to extend the period was mischievous and mala fide.
Whether the suit is time barred?
100/ per stock of fuel wood.
If number, its extent and value?
Suit was accordingly decreed.
That though the entire sale companysideration was deposited and the appellant started cutting the shisham trees within the aforesaid area, he was prevented by the Forest and Colonization department from removing the remaining trees as well as the chattas of fuel wood.
The High Court agreed with the factual companyclusions arrived at by the learned Civil Judge to the effect that 171 shisham trees standing in the trans Dhimri area had been sold to the plaintiff and that he had felled only those 171 shisham trees.
If so, its effect?
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
Whether the numberice under Section 80, C.P.C. was invalid?
The High Court also agreed that the wood which had been seized by the Forest Department and later on sold by it was in fact the property which had been sold to the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff exported the entire timber of 171 trees purchased by him as alleged?
To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
It was also found as a fact that the Forest and Colonization Department had obstructed the appellant from removing part of the trees felled by him and that the said action was number justified.
40,000/ as alleged by the wrongful and illegal acts of Forest Department?
Whether the defendant realised any benefit from the acts of the plaintiff?
The Respondent being aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court took the matter in appeal to the High Court.
The trial Court after recording evidence and going through material on the record returned a finding of fact to the effect that only 171 shisham trees standing in the area in question had been sold to the appellant and that he did number cut any tree besides those 171 trees.
The trial Court repelled the argument of the respondent that the companytract was hit by Article 299 of the Constitution and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover companypensation from the respondent.
Whether the plaintiff left behind any timber on 1st December, 1952 of the trees purchased by him?
If so, is the plaintiff responsible for it.
If so, to what extent and its effect?
After serving a numberice under Section 80 of the CPC, claiming damages for illegal detention of the trees, which the appellant had purchased and felled, the suit was filed.
7,500/ .
