They, therefore, disclaimed all liability to pay the price of 2803 tons of companyl.
he was number entitled to a decree against them.
4 was a benamidar for the partnership firm and, therefore, all the respondents were liable for the claim.
as well as soft companye, including the stock left by the appellant at the time of granting the sub lease, because that companyld number be sold, and the appellant took possession of the entire stock lying in the companyliery in November, 1950, after promising to adjust it towards the dues.
4, he was liable to pay for this companyl at the rate of Rs.
On January 31, 1949, he granted a sub lease of the companyliery to respondent No.
4 formed a partnership firm known as Saurashtra Coal Concern which was joined in the suit as defendant No.
28,030/ as the price of companyl and companymission thereon against all the respondents.
According to them, on the date of the surrender of the lease by them, there was a stock of more than 2803 tons of slack and rubble, etc.,
4, but he was number paid its price amounting to Rs.
They also denied having taken a loan from the appellant as alleged by him.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 17, 1958 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
10/ per ton after selling it.
No separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.
According to them, respondent No.
The appellants case was that respondent No.
4 was a benamidar for the partnership firm.
He joined respondents 1, 2 and 5 as defendants to the suit on the ground that these three persons along with respondent No.
4 took a sublease of the property from the appellant and gave a managing agency of the same to the Saurashtra Coal Concern of which the first respondent is the financing partner and the second respondent is the working partner.
1,355 8 3 on account of a loan taken by them from him on February 17, 1949.
4 took the sub lease in his personal capacity and number on behalf of the other respondents.
4 on behalf of the partnership firm, but their companytention was that they surrendered their lease hold interest to the appellant on November 1, 1950, which was accepted by him, and that he was, therefore, number entitled to the claim in respect of royalty and companymission from them for the period subsequent to November 1, 1950.
28,030/ .
The appellant holds permanent lease hold rights over a companyliery called the Jealgora Govindpur Colliery and had worked the companyliery himself for some time.
46 of 1961.
3, but respondents 1 2, who were defendants 2 4 in the trial companyrt, denied the appellants claim totally.
They averred that there was numberprivity of companytract between them and the appellant and that, therefore.
4 for a term of five years.
The total claim was tentatively valued by him at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It further passed a preliminary decree for ascertaining the precise amount of royalty and companymission which would be due to the appellant on account of the sub lease.
According to the appellant, this companyl was sold by respondent No.
5 and is number respondent No.
57,000/ .
Sarjoo Prasad and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
This companycern was, they say, never a sub lessee of the appellant.
The real facts, according to them, are that the respondent No.
Further, according to him, royalty and companymission were due to him from the respondents in respect of the companyl extracted by them from the companyliery, as also Rs.
The trial companyrt negatived the claim of the appellant in respect of the loan but decreed the claim for Rs.
They also denied having anything to do with the stock of companyl which the appellant is alleged to have sold to the 4th respondent.
Respondents 4 5, who are father and son, admitted the appellants companytention that the lease was obtained by respondent No.
162 of 1952.
133 1 a of the Constitution, and arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant against the respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
Further, according to them, the companyl which was lying in the companyliery was number actually weighed at the time of the agreement and the figure of 2803 tons was put down only as a rough estimate.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Patna under Art.
At that time, 2803 tons of slack and rubble companyl was lying in the companyliery, and under the terms of a separate agreement executed by respondent No.
57,000/ .
3 before us.
C. Prasad, for respondents Nos.
April 1, 1964.
