YARLAGADDA CHINA RATTAYYA Vs. DONEPUDI VENKATARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of O. S. No. 96 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Rajahmundry. This action was raised by the plaintiff who is the 1st respondent in both the appeals for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 against defendants 1 to 3 under three heads: (a) damages for an illegal cancellation of a lease d/20-3-1937; (b) value of timber illegally taken possession of by defendants 1 and 2 and made over to the 3rd defendant; and (c) value of some movables illegally taken over by the 1st and 2nd defendants and given to the 3rd defendant. Under the first head, Rs. 1,50,000.00 is claimed; and under the 2nd and 3rd heads Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 1,00,000.00 respectively. The plaintiff obtained a lease marked as Ex. A-1 on 30-3-1937 to fell timber in certain ranges of Jeypor forests from the 1st defendant the Maharajah of Jeypore. The 2nd defendant was the Assistant Dewan of the estate at that time. Having taken the lease to exploit the forests in the three ranges under Motu division, the plaintiff admitted into partnership with him the 6th defendant and one Dr. Sattaraju whose legal representatives are defendants 4 and 5. Dr. Sattiraju having died prior to the institution of the suit. Dr. Sattiraju was to be the financing partner and was to get a three-annas share while the plaintiff and the 6th defendant had each a six and half annas share. Some time after this, disputes arose amongst the partners with the consequence that the forests could not be exploited and the business came to a stand-still. Then the matter was referred to the arbitration of the second defendant under Ex. B-46 D/- 11-7-1940. The award was passed on 9-7-1943-vide Ex. B-128. A few months later the compact evidenced by Ex. A-1 was terminated by the first defendant for the reasons contained in Ex. A-2d/20-1-1944. On that date, the lease was to run for a further period of four years. Within a short time thereafter, i. e., on 24-1-1944, a lease of the same area was granted to the Motu industries, which had its registered office at Rajahmundry, the 3rd defendant. Though Ex. A-2 was received by the plaintiff in the same month he remained silent for over 2 1/2 years. On 11-3-1946, he caused a notice to be issued by a lawyer denying the right of the 1st defendant to rescind the contract and also claiming a sum of Rupees 4,00,000/- under the three heads mentioned above. It was also suggested in the notice that the reason for the delay in replying to the notice of the 1st defendant canceling the contract was that he was sent for by the 1st and 2nd defendants and start ed negotiations about the compensation and damages that were payable to him for illegal rescission of the contract and the cost of felling wood etc.

(2.) The suit in which these appeals are filed was brought three years later, The 3rd defendant was impleaded because he was the lessee of the same forest for the subsequent period under the 1st defendant and also because the 1st and 2nd defendants are alleged to have transferred the trees that were felled by the plaintiff prior to the termination of the contract.

(3.) The answer of the defendants to the suit was that the plaintiff abandoned the contract, that, at any rate, it was validly cancelled, and therefore not legally entitled to any compensation and that there were no trees felled by the plaintiff which were in the forests at the time of the termination of the lease and which were illegally taken over by the defendants. Even if any such logs of wood were in the forest at the relevant date, the timber not removed within nine calendar months of the determination of the lease became the absolute property of the 1st defendant. As regards the second claim, it was pleaded all the things were sold to the 1st defendant for Rs. 9,500.00 by the plaintiff and his partners through the 2nd defendant and the price paid in that behalf was adequate and proper and could not be questioned in that suit.