BALDEO NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who constitute a joint Hindu Mitakshara family and run a Mill in the name and style of The Rajput Rice Mills at Jainagar in the District of Darbhanga. It arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees 24698-4-6 as per account given in Schedule III-IIID of the plaint by way of loss which the plaintiffs claim to have suffered while they were in possession of a large quantity of paddy as bailee. This loss, as averred in the plaint, was due to an unprecedented flood which visited Jainagar in 1948 on 2nd and 3rd September and as a result thereof the lower layer of the paddy bags numbering about 1541, which were stocked in godowns, were got soiled and damaged with the result that when milled into rice, they did not give the quantity which they should have yielded as rice. Along with this item of loss the appellants in this Court have also pressed their claim in respect of three other items, namely, (1) godown rent, (2) driage and (3) price of gunny bags.

(2.) The facts of this case are substantially admitted between the parties and the controversy between them is confined mainly to two points only, namely, (1) whether the flood referred to above was of a character of vis-major and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered as a result thereof and (2) whether the claim advanced by the plaintiffs is consistent with the terms of the contract arrived at between the parties.

(3.) The facts admitted are that on 1-5-1946, the Government entered into various contracts with a number of Rice Mills including that of the plaintiffs for purchasing paddy on their behalf and milling the same into rice and thereafter to supply the milled rice to the Government at the rate of 65 maunds per 100 maunds of paddy. In pursuance of this contract the plaintiffs, under various systems of procurement of paddy, finally received on behalf of the Government 39442 maunds and 39 seers of paddy. It is not denied that this entire amount was the property of the Government and that the same was stored with the plaintiffs in the capacity of a bailee. According to the contract referred to above the rice to be supplied by the plaintiffs from 39442/ maunds and 39 seers of paddy was 25672 maunds and 37 seers, out of which, it is conceded that the) plaintiffs did supply to the Government 24410 maunds and 30 seers of rice out of the stock of paddy milled and about 105 maunds from their own stock making a total of 24515 maunds and 30 seers of rice, and thus about 1157 maunds and 7 seers of rice was still left due from the plaintiffs. Their case before the Government was that due to the damage caused to the paddy as a result of the flood referred to above, their quality and quantity deteriorated and so the rice yielded after milling from them was not in the ratio of 65 maunds of rice from 100 maunds of paddy but much less than that and it was that which gave rise to the deficit of 1157 maunds and 7 seers of rice. In support of their case the plaintiffs placed reliance mainly, apart from the oral testimony, on the two reports submitted by two officers of the Department, namely Exts. 5(a) and A, as also on their own account books which have been exhibited in this case as Exts. 1(c) and (d). Ext. 5 (a) is a report submitted by the Marketing Inspector and is dated 12-9-1946, and Ext. A is a report submitted by the Regional Grain Supply Officer, Darbhanga, and is dated 3-4-1947. The Government, however, on a consideration of these materials, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs! were entitled to a remission of only 68 maunds and 10 seers of rice due to flood and about 67 maunds and 27 seers due to driage making a total of 135 maunds and 37 seers with the result that after giving a remission of the above quantity of rice, about 1021 maunds and 10 seers were still found due from them. The price of this was deducted by the Government from the final account, which was adjusted between the parties on 3rd August 1947. Hence the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for the realisation of the price of this quantity of rice as also for the loss incurred by them on account of three other items referred to above. The trial court in substance, on hearing the parties, accepted the defence set up by the Government and decreed the suit in part only for a few nominal items. Therefore, the plaintiffs have now come up in appeal to this Court.