MAHARAJADHIRAJA SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. MDYASIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge arising out of an action in which the plain, tiff claimed arrears of what I shall describe as license fees due, amounting to Rupees 6806.4-0. The plaintiff is the appellant and the difficulty that I find in the case is to discover exactly what the plaintiff's case is with regard to the terms of the contract he is alleged to have made with the defendant. Broadly stated, it purports to be a license granted to the defendant allowing him to collect hides in one of the circles of the plaintiff's Raj.

(2.) The learned Judge in the Court below has come to the conclusion on the facts against the plaintiff. He has also decided that the grant to the defendant was a monopoly and therefore unenforceable. Sir Sultan Ahmed, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, contends that what in fact was granted to the defendant was a right to go on to the parti land of the plaintiff for a period of three years according to the terms of the grant, and there to purchase from the Chamars hides of dead animals which they brought there for the purpose of sale. I propose to say as little as possible about this case and I think it quite clear that had a case of that kind been made out (always assuming of course that the findings of fact were in favour of the plaintiff), the sums which are sought to be recovered in this case would be recoverable. But in my judgment no such case, as alleged by Sir Sultan Ahmed, has been established by the plaintiff. For the years 1336 to 1338 Fs. two persons Mamatullah and Muhammad Mustafa had been granted license under a kabuliyat dated 23 January 1929 which is Ex. H in the case. It is not evidence as regards the terms entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant but it has been put forward as some evidence of the actual terms upon the footing of which the defendant is alleged to have been contracting. The license was granted by an auction which took place on 25 September 1929 and continued until 19th November 1929.

(3.) From the bid-sheet it would appear that one of the bidders, Samatullah, was one of the licensees under the license of 1929. This is a fact of importance to the appellant and upon it the appellant relies. Ultimately according to the bid-sheet the license was knocked down to the defendant for the sum of Rs. 2815. I have already observed that it is the contention of Sir Sultan Ahmed, realizing the difficulty he has in the case, that it was a grant to the defendant to go on to the parti land of the plaintiff, but as I have already stated, I see no indication from the evidence of that term, excepting perhaps the evidence of one of the witnesses being Badri Chamar who in examination in chief makes this statement: Before that (i.e. before license was granted to the defendant) we sold hides to the defendant. For that purpose we used to bring the dead animals to the gairmazrua land of the plaintiff and skin them there.