It was pleaded that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 41 1 of the Hyderabad Abkari Act and that in any case the suit was barred by 1 limitation under Section 41 2 of the Hyderabad Abkari Act.
As a result of the failure of the Excise authorities to give the allotted threes to the plaintiffs they suffered losses and were unable to pay the instalments.
The suit was companytested by the Government of Hyderabad.
In regard to the Marredpally shop, the learned Additional Chief Judge found that 1600 trees in Sbengaram village were taken away from the so shops quota as they had already been allotted to the shop of some other companytractor.
On that basis the learned Judge came to the companyclusion that there was shortage of 350 Sendhi trees out of the quota of trees ear marked for the Marredpally shops.
It was held that there was numbershortage of Takmilla trees.
They were the Contractors of the Marredpally and Balamrai Sendhi and Toddy shops for the Abkari year 1951 52.
It was, however, held that the relief of in junction was number so barred and that the Government was number entitled to claim Rs.
In particular it was alleged that 1600 trees in Shengram village and 710 trees in Ibrahimnagar which were ear marked for the shops never given to the plaintiffs but, instead they were allotted to other companytractOrs.
On those findings the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the suit.
They have filed the present appeal.
Notice was served on the plaintiffs by affixture on 22nd October, 1952.
1042/ of the monthly rental for twelve months, in view of the fact that there was a shortage of 350 trees in respect of the Marredpally shop.
The Government of Hyderabad demanded from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.
Despite the representations of the plaintiffs the companytract in their favour was terminated and the shops were reauctioned on 19th May 1952.
Thereafter on 3rd June, 1954, the suit out of which the appeal arises was filed to recover a sum of Rs.
They all edged in the plaint that though they had companyplied with all the terms of the companytract they were number put in possession of the number of trees ear marked for the two shops at the time of the question.
79,379 15 8 said to be the Abkari arrears due by the plaintiffs to the Government.
With regard to the trees in Ibrahimnagar village it was stated that the trees were never taken away from the plaintiff and that they had number been allotted to anyone else.
It was stated in regard to the trees in Shengaram village that the trees had been wrongly allotted to the plaintiffs and therefore on the request of the plaintiffs they were allowed to purchase toddy from the Government Depot, equal to the yield of 1250 trees, as a special companycession.
1,54,628 9 2 said to be the damages suffered by the plaintiffs on account of breach of companytract companymitted by the Government and for an injunction restraining the Government of Hyderabad from Abkari companytract relating to the Merradpelly and Ballamrai shops for the year 1951 52.
The allegation that the agreed number of trees were number given to the plaintiffs was denied.
The learned Judge found that there was numberbreach of companytract on the part of the Government and that the Government was entitled to terminate the companytract of the plaintiffs and reauction the shops when the plaintiffs failed to pay the instalments.
The plaintiffs referred an appeal to the High Court.
The High Court also held that the suit was barred by both Sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 41 in regard to the claim for damages.
On merits the High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Judge.
12 of 1958 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are the appellants in this appeal filed pursuant to a Certificate granted under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to the 30th Amendment .
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No.
