Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 12 of 1958 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are the appellants in this appeal filed pursuant to a Certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India (as it stood prior to the 30th Amendment). They were the Abkari Contractors of the Marredpally and Balamrai Sendhi and Toddy shops for the Abkari year 1951-52. They alleged in the plaint that though they had complied with all the terms of the contract they were not put in possession of the number of trees ear-marked for the two shops at the time of the auction. In particular it was alleged that 1600 trees in Shengaram village and 710 trees in Ibrahimnagar which were ear-marked for the shops were never given to the plaintiffs but, instead they were allotted to other contractors. As a result of the failure of the Excise authorities to give the allotted trees to the plaintiffs they suffered losses and were unable to pay the instalments. Despite the representations of the plaintiffs the contract in their favour was terminated and the shops were re-auctioned on 19th May 1952. The Government of Hyderabad demanded from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 79,379-15-8 said to be the Akbari arrears due by the plaintiffs to the Government. Notice was served on the plaintiffs by affixture on 22nd October, 1952. Thereafter on 3rd June, 1955, the suit out of which the appeal arises was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 1,54,628-9-2 said to be the damages suffered by the plaintiffs on account of breach of contract committed by the Government and for an injunction restraining the Government of Hyderabad from recovering any amount from the plaintiffs in respect of the Abkari contract relating to the Merredpally and Balamrai shops for the year 1951-52.
(2.) The suit was contested by the Government of Hyderabad. The allegation that the agreed number of trees were not given to the plaintiffs was denied. With regard to the trees in Ibrahimnagar village, it was stated that the trees were never taken away from the plaintiffs and that they had not been allotted to anyone else. It was stated in regard to the trees in Shengram village that the trees had been wrongly allotted to the plaintiffs and therefore on the request of the plaintiffs they were allowed to purchase toddy from the Government Depot, equal to the yield of 1250 trees, as a special concession. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 41 (1) of the Hyderabad Abkari Act and that in any case the suit was barred by limitation under Section 41 (2) of the Hyderabad Abkari Act.
(3.) The learned Additional Chief Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation under Sec. 41 (2) of the Hyderabad Abkari Act. On merits, the learned Additional Chief Judge held that there was no shortage of allotment of trees in regard to Ballamrai shop either with regard to Quararded or Takmilla quota. In regard to the Merredpally shop, the learned Additional Chief Judge found that 1600 trees in Shengaram village were taken away from the shop's quota as they had already been allotted to the shop of some other contractor. The learned Judge also found that in lieu of the Shengaram trees, the plaintiff asked for and was granted permission to purchase toddy from the Government Depot, the quantity so permitted representing the yield of 1250 trees. On that basis the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was shortage of 350 Sendhi trees out of the quota of trees ear-marked for the Marredpally shops. It was held that there was no shortage of Takmilla trees. The learned Judge found that there was no breach of contract on the part of the Government and that the Government was entitled to terminate the contract of the plaintiffs and reauction the shops when the plaintiffs failed to pay the instalments. On these findings the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the suit.;