English translation of the said agreement reads thus P. S. Jadhav Thakur Sahab Naya Bazar Lashkar, Gwalior.
1 , whereunder he appointed the appellant as his companymission agent.
The High Court allowed the appeal of the State and set aside the decree against it but it failed to pass any order on the cross objection.
The finding, of the High Court is that the grain was removed by the Government from the possession of the appellant without any force or fraud and the appellant handed over that grain to the Government in response to a companymunication from the Controller of Foodgrains.
1/8/per cent on the goods which will be brought by the Seth Sahab or his man from outside and I shall pay companymission at the rate of Re.
He had entered into an agreement with the appellant plaintiff on October 14, 1942 Ex.
Therefore I appoint Ramprasad s o Prabhudayal caste Mathur Vaishya resident of Naya Bazar, Lashkar as my adhatia Commission Agent and settle the following terms I shall pay interest at the rate, of Re.
The State Government paid the price of the said stock to Hetampal Singh.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 12, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in First Appeal No.
The account thereof shall also remain with him.
The facts of the case lie within narrow limits.
30,699/1/3 against both the defendants.
1/ p.c.
I shall pay companymission at the rate of Rs.
9 of 1959.
It did number set out the right under which the plaintiff was claiming any relief against the State.
The plaint filed by the plaintiff is a bald one.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt against the defendants in a sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
22,634/4/ together with companyts and interest from the date of the decree.
The second defendant did number appeal against that decree.
P. Goyal and S. N. Singh, for the appellant.
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
Hetampalsingh Jadhav son of Bhagwansingh Jadhav caste Thakur, am a resident of Naya Bazar, Lashkar.
3 1 shall pay the whole expenses of journey, railway fare, allowance etc.
The plaintiff filed cross objection claiming interest on the principal amount claimed from the date of the suit till decree.
One Hetampal Singh, father of defendant No, 2 was a licence holder for Gird District in the then State of Gwalior for distribution of grain.
The decision in Santi Sahu vs. Sheogulam Sahu 1 relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of numberassistance to him because the agreement relied on in that case is materially different from the one before us.
Before the suit came to be filed Hetampal Singh had died and hence he 2nd defendant was impleaded as his legal representative.
In this appeal the appellant seeks number only to get restored the trial companyrts decree against the State of Madhya Pradesh, he also wants that the relief claimed by him in his cross objection before the High Court should be granted to him.
2205 of 1966.
in the suit he claimed a sum of Rs.
The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.
133 1 a of the Constitution.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Art.
1/ per cent on the goods which will be brought by me from outside and for which the Seth Sahab will have only to get released the railway way bill.
The appellants case is that the State Government is liable to reimburse him the money due to him from Hetampal Singh.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, the 1st defendant in the suit appealed against the decree.
