JAGANNATH PATNAIK Vs. SRI PITAMBAR BHUPATI HARICHANDAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing his suit for recovery of damages for breach of contract.

(2.) The defendant is the present proprietor of an impartible estate known as Killa Sukinda situate in Cuttack district. The previous proprietor of the said estate was one Sri Krutibas Bhupati Harichandan Mohapatra who died on 10-12-43 and was succeeded by the defendant who is his son's son. The defendant's father predeceased his father. The plaintiff is an experienced Revenue Officer who has served in the former States of Orissa in various capacities for several years. He had also served as a Manager of Sukinda estate for some time prior to 1938 and had given full satisfaction to the then proprietor. From 1938 to the 1st quarter of 1941 he was employed in Talcher State as Sadar Sub-divisional Officer. The proprietor of Sukinda estate was however anxious to utilise his services in his estate and on 3-12-40 he wrote a letter (Ext. 1) to the plaintiff requesting him to take charge "of the management of his estate and to discharge his duties in the same efficient manner as he had done on a previous occasion. There were subsequent negotiations between the two which culminated in a contract dated 26-12-40. The proprietor handed over to the plaintiff a letter of appointment (Ext. 2) which was to the following effect:

(3.) One of the pleas taken by the defendant In the trial Court was that the plaintiff was guilty of dishonesty and misconduct during his tenure of office as Dewan and that consequently even if the terms of the contract entered into with the plaintiff by his grandfather (Ext. 2) be held to be binding on the defendant the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. An issue was raised on this question but at the time of argument, this issue was given up and was rightly not agitated before us.