A.N. Grover, J. - (1.) Thakur Randhirshah, Jagirdar or Sonpur Jagir executed a deed dated August, 5, 1949 in favour of Ram Narain Mahto-hereinafter called the plaintiff-relating to sale of timber, for Rs. 51,501 apd received Rs. 15,000 in part payment. On February 19, 1951, the Forest Officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh prevented the plaintiff and the Jagirdar from cutting the trees. On March 31, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) was brought into force and by virtue of that Act the interest of the Jagirdar in the estate vested in the State. On June 14, 1954, the plaintiff instituted an action in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, for a decree for Rs. 1,50,000 for breach of the contract of sale against the State of Madhya Pradesh and against the Jagirdar. There were four heads of the claim for compensation : (i) Rs. 21,375 . . being the value of 4275 logs of timber which were cut but which the plaintiff could not remove ; (ii) Rs. 30,000 . . for 6,000 logs of timber which though cut were not found on the spot and some of which were either burnt or stolen ; (iii) Rs. 30,000 . . on account of 60,00 logs of timber from the standing timber of four villages which had not been cut: and (iv) Rs. 75,000 . . for 15,000 logs of timber which the plaintiff could not cut from the remaining villages. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the logs of timber at the rate of Rs. 5 per log in the aggregate.
(2.) The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that the Jagirdar had started illegal cutting for which proceedings were taken against him and that he was prevented from cutting any timber; that sometime thereafter the logs of timber lying in the forest were hammer-marked" and the Jagirdar was permitted to remove the logs till March 31, 1953 subject to certain conditions, e.g. obtaining malguzari passes for the transit and submitting weekly statement of the removal, that the agreement dated August 5, 1949, being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence, and created no title, that in any event the deed could not be enforced against the State because of the vesting of the Jagir under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, in the State; that the contract created a mere personal liability enforceable against the Jagirdar; and that the State was not the successor-in-interest of the Jagirdar but claimed a right to the Jagir under a statute.
(3.) The Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to value of the logs of timber described under the four heads of his claim, at the rate of Rs. 1/8/- per log. Accordingly the trial Court determined the compensation payable to the plaintiff at Rs. 46,912 and after giving credit for Rs. 36,000 payable by the plaintiff to the Jagirdar and to which the State became entitled, passed a decree for the balance of Rs. 10,912 and interest thereon. The plaintiff and the State appealed to the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that the rate per log could not exceed Rs. 1/8/-. The High Court disallowed the claim of the plaintiff for items (ii), (iii) and (iv) and for item (i) the High Court allowed Rs. 3,712 being the value of 2475 logs of timber which had not been removed. The High Court held that out of the amount awarded nothing was liable to be deducted towards the alleged arrears due to the Jagirdar. The plaintiff appeals to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court.;