LAWS(PVC)-1918-7-10

SREE VEERA SREE VEERADHI VEERA VARA PRATAPA SREE, KURUPAMAYA ANANGABHIMA DEO KESARI GAJAPATHY MAHARAJA GARU, ZAMINDAR OF BODOKIMIDI Vs. BABU SEESIL KUMAR LAHIRI

Decided On July 31, 1918
SREE VEERA SREE VEERADHI VEERA VARA PRATAPA SREE, KURUPAMAYA ANANGABHIMA DEO KESARI GAJAPATHY MAHARAJA GARU, ZAMINDAR OF BODOKIMIDI Appellant
V/S
BABU SEESIL KUMAR LAHIRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Rule 20 of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Agency Rules requesting this Court to direct the Agent to review his judgment in a civil appeal. The suit was one brought against the Zemindar of Bodokimidi to obtain damages for breach of contract and was filed in the Court of the Agent to the Governor in Ganjam. The Agent after settling issues referred the suit for the decision of the Special Assistant Agent, Berhampore Division. From his decree in the plaintiff s favour there was an appeal to the Agent, who confirmed the Special Assistant s decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.

(2.) The suit arose out of an agreement entered into by the parties in September 1915, whereby it was arranged that the plaintiff should out and take timber for railway sleepers from the defendant s forests for a term of four years and pay royalty to the defendant upon the timber so removed.

(3.) One of the conditions was that the defendant Zemindar was to send a forest officer or other subordinate to mark such trees as might be pointed out by the plaintiff or his agent upon intimation of the plaintiff s intention to start work in any particular area. The object of this condition is stated, namely, that no delay should occur in starting felling in a forest area after finishing in an old area. Another condition was that no trees below three feet in girth at one foot from the ground should be out. The plaintiff was to construct at his own cost the necessary tracks for removing the timber and was not to remove any wood that would not be useful for sleepers; but he might utilize third class wood for purposes of fuel and building huts for his men, provided that the buildings so constructed were to become the property of the defendant after the lease expired. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was to be deposited by the plaintiff as security for his cutting a sufficient quantity of timber to yield Rs. 32,600 royalty in each half of the whole period of contract, the deposit being returnable upon fulfilment of all the conditions of the agreement.