JASUDIN AMBIR SAHEB FAKI Vs. SAKHARAM GANESH SHROTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a curious and interesting point. The plaintiff Jasudin sued to recover from the defendant Sakharam Ganesh the sum of Rs. 2,350-11-5 which he said was due to him under a contract dated the 21st of July 1904. The terms of the contract are to be found in the receipt Exhibit 26. In that document it appears that the defendant, who is the occupant of about twenty Survey Numbers in the village Indgaon in the Vada Taluka, agreed to sell teak and blackwood trees in those Survey Numbers to the plaintiff at Rs. 6 per every 100 Stumps. The plaintiff was to pay certain fees and expenses in connection with those trees etc. Rs. 15 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest.

(2.) At the time when this contract was entered into there was in existence Government Resolution No. 7114, dated the 27th of September 1897, (to which we have referred) whereby (when the right to the after-growth was no longer disposed of with the standing trees but was reserved to Government,) a privilege of pre-emption was granted in respect of such trees to the occupants of the lands on which they were growing. But by a Resolution No. 3874, dated the 11th of May 1905, the Government of Bombay modified their said Resolution. This latter Resolution, after reciting that the privilege of pre-emption sanctioned by the previous Resolution had led to large gains being made by brokers and traders, which represented corresponding loss to the Government and the occupants, goes on to say that the Governor in Council sees no sufficient reason for continuing to occupants the privilege of pre-emption when the rights of the after-growth are no longer disposed of with the standing trees but is reserved to Government etc. The Governor in Council accordingly directs that the Forest Department should cut and remove for sale the teak standing in unoccupied Warkas land or, when such a course is found preferable, sell it standing on condition of immediate removal, and that 20 per cent. of the net proceeds of the sale should be paid to the occupant, which percentage should be a gift from Government and subject to no tribunal and in case the Collector is unable to settle summarily any disputes as to who is the occupant of any particular Survey Number, the percentage share of that number should be credited not to any of the disputants but to the Taluka Local Board for expenditure in the village to which the Survey Number belongs.

(3.) The plaintiff, under his contract above-mentioned, claims the above sum, being 20 per cent. of the net proceeds of the trees in question. The defendant contended that the teak and black-wood trees were not his property but the property of Government and that the plaintiff was only entitled to a refund of the Rs. 15 earnest money, which the defendant brought into Court.