PILLALA NARSIAH Vs. BOMMAGANI MALLESHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of O.S. Rs. 9,721-10-8 as damages for breach of contract. The plaint allegation was that one Ramgirthi Mallaiah obtained a contract of abkari concern of the village Ponekal, Taluk Pakhal, for the year 1952-53. He transferred the said contract in favour of the defendants. As per the general practice, the defendants divided the village into 44 chirkas (shares) for t pping toddy and sendhi trees and for selling toddy and sendhi. Out of 44 chirkas 19 were allotted to the plaintiffs under the pondupottu system. The terms of the agreement were :

(2.) In pursuance of the said contract, defendant gave possession on 1st October, 1952, to the plaintiffs to the extent of their chirkas (shares) and the plaintiffs in their turn paid a sum. of Rs. 1,562-12-0 to the defendants on 7th October, 1952, as profits and advance payment of monthly dues. They also paid a sum of Rs. 712-0-0 on I4th October, 1952, towards tree-tax. The plaintiffs during the period beginning from 1st October, 1952, to 22nd November, 1952, earned a profit by of Rs. 1,639-3-4 but by the wrongful act of the defendants they were unlawfully dispossessed on 22nd November, 1952. The plaintiffs sought relief in the office of the District Collector but no relief was granted and in spite of endeavours requesting the defendants to deliver possession, they too refused. The plaintiffs, therefore, alleged that if they had remained in possession for the entire stipulated period they would have earned a profit of Rs. 9,721-10-8.

(3.) The defendants while admitting that originally the contract was given to Ramgirthi Mallaiah it was transferred to them, denied that as per the general practice they divided the village into 44 chirkas and out of them sold 19 chirkas to the plaintiffs for tapping toddy and sendhi trees and also for selling toddy and sendhi. On the other hand, they stated that they wanted to run the business by letting some of the toddy and sendhi trees to their co-caste brethren under the pondupottu system after obtaining permission to tap the trees under the provisions of the Abkari Act, but they say that plaintiffs 3 to 11 including some other inhabitants of the village expressed their willingness to run the concern along with the other chirka-holders abiding the provisions of the law. According to their desire, the defendants agreed to let out under the provisions of law one chirka to each person with the permission to tap the sendhi and toddy trees and to sell the sendhi and toddy on payment of deposit (dhadvath amount) and expenses proportionate to their shares and at the rate of Rs. 9-6-0 for each tree and baithak tax and licence fee for the sale of toddy and sendhi and dhadvath amount of two months together with the necessary expenses for each chirka was Rs. 82-4-0 at which rate dhadvath amount for the 19 chirkas was Rs. 1,562-12-0 and tree-tax was Rs. 712-8-0. Accordingly, they say that the plaintiffs and other villagers agreed to run the concern after paying Rs. 1,562-12-0 plus Rs. 712-8-0 tree-tax. But with the intention of causing loss to the defendants, they started tapping unauthorised trees without obtaining permission to tap them and ran the concern at their will and pleasure and in spite of consistent demands they withheld payment of instalments due in the months of October and November, 1952. As the actions of the plaintiffs 3 to 11 and their partners affected the interests of the defendants, they informed the concerned department from where they were restrained from interfering in the Abkari concern of the defendants. They also denied that they had ever entered into any special oral agreement with the plaintiff's or that the plaintiffs 3 to 11 alone have paid Rs. 1,563-12-0 and Rs. 712-8-0 under the pendupad system including the tree-tax and stated that plaintiffs 3 to 11 have paid dhadvath amount including the expenses in proportion to their 9 chirkas and also paid Rs. 337-8-0 towards tree-tax. Theydenied that they have committed any breach of the terms of the contract and stated that it was the plaintiffs and other villagers who had not complied with the terms of the contract. They also denied the authenticity of the total amount of damages or that they were liable to pay damages as they were not responsible for their dispossession.