BADRIPRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that he was not liable to pay a certain amount originally due from defendant-respondent No. 2 and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, defendant-respondent No.1 from continuing the proceedings for the recovery of the amount or for starting any fresh proceedings. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court but, on appeal, the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the appellant's suit.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that on December 24, 1956, respondent No. 2 purchased at the public auction sale held by the Divisional Forest Officer, Harda, the cut timber and arkat trees of coupe No. 9 Eastern, East Kalibhit Range, in Harda Forest Division, for Rupees 70,200. The appellant stood surety for the purchaser, viz., respondent No. 2. The purchase price was to be paid in four instalments, according to para 4 of the deed of contract. Rupees 17,600 were to be paid at more and were so paid. The other instalments were due on March 1, May 15 and December 15, 1957. These instalments were not paid by respondent No. 2 and hence respondent No. 1 took proceedings against the appellant for the recovery of the amount.

(3.) According to the terms of the contract, the contractor, respondent No. 2, was to commence his work of collecting and removing the cut timber within 1 month after furnishing a copy of the boundary certificate. This certificate, Exhibit D-1, was furnished on February 5, 1957 and stated that the respondent No. 2 had clearly understood the boundaries of the areas covered by the lease and that he had taken possession of the standing/felled/collected material in the aforesaid coupe as announced at the auction and described in the said lease and that he was satisfied that the quantity delivered to him agreed substantially with that announced at the auction.