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.
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 plaintiff filed cross objection claiming interest on the principal amount claimed from the date of the suit till decree.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt against the defendants in a sum of Rs.
I shall pay companymission at the rate of Rs.
1/ p.c.
English translation of the said agreement reads thus P. S. Jadhav Naya Bazar Thakur Sahab Lashkar, Gwalior.
2 was a licence holder for Gird District in the then State of Gwalior for distribution of grain.
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.
Before the suit came to be filed Hetampal Singh had died and hence the 2nd defendant was impleaded as his legal representative.
He had entered into an agreement with the appellant plaintiff on October 14, 1942 Ex.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, the 1st defendant in the suit appealed against the decree.
of the person who will go out on behalf of the Seth Sahab for bringing the goods.
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.
I shall pay the whole expenses of journey, railway fare, allowance etc.
In the suit he claimed a sum of Rs.
The whole of the goods which will be received from outside, shall remain in possession of the Seth Sahab.
One Hetampal Singh, father of defendant No.
I , whereunder he appointed the appellant as his companymission agent.
The State Government paid the price of the said stock to Hetampal Singh.
The facts of the case lie within narrow limits.
30,699/1/3 against both the defendants.
The decision in Santi Sahu v. Sheogulam Sahu 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.
The second defendant did number appeal against that decree.
The appellants case is that the State Government is liable to reimburse him the money due to him from Hetampal Singh.
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.
22,634/4/ together with companyts and interest from the date of the decree.
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.
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.
The account thereof shall also remain with him.
The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.
I Hetampalsingh Jadhav son of Bhagwansingh Jadhav caste Thakur, am a resident of Naya Bazar, Lashkar.
