Defen- C)nly two Plaintiff The plaintiff The contract was for the felling JUDGJY:ENT in the suit for Rs. 61 Fs due to them of the price of timber actually sold Although plaintiff denied liability-for this counterclaim, Since the advance amount· hots be en taken into account in This appeal arises out of a suit on a contract points w now arise for decision. and sale of timber standing in certain properties. entitled to recover back from 'the. defendants this advance. to him. to who the timber was, to be sold had paid an advance of Is. 250. In this appeal which is filed by the plaintiff he claims that he is Appellant - .plaintiff Ouseph, son of. Akkarappatty Thorna.nkutty, resident at Kizhak- kumpattukara , Desom, Peringavu Village, Trichur Taluk By advocate Shri c.c. John Respondents - defendants 1 and 2 1. Anthony, son of Arakkal Varied, resident at annuthy, OJ.lukar:a Village, Trichur •raluk 2. Mathai, son of Thadathil· Verghese, resident at Pattikkat Desom, Panan cherri Village Trichur 'i'aluk Respondent1 by advocate Shri K.F. Abraham This appeal suit having been finally heard_on 2.5.1956, the court on the same day delivered the following IN THE HIGH CCU:T OR JUDICATUEE OF TEAVAN DR Z-GO CHIN Present: * The Hon 'ble Shri G. Kumara PiJ_lai, J and The Hon'ble Shri N. Varadaraja Iyengar, U Appeal Sui No. 20f 1955 0. S ~ No. 104 of 1122 of the Trichur District Court ·i, of Rs. 250 against the amount of Rs. 618 due to them. has not objected in the a.ppea):. to the decree thus given to the· def en the court below allowed it and gave a decree. to tne, dBfenda,nts for Rs 368 which is the balance after setting off the advance amount dants. sett.ling the accounts betiveen the plaintiff and the defendants to the p.irice of the timber sold: to him the plaintiff can.not be allowed to recover again the ,advfttnce amount from the defendants. . . I : . .:. dants' harade a ,counter claim from the :::>le:intiff on acc;ount ,· ./ .· .0' • Under this head the· plain - In the result the appeal SD. G. KUMARA PILLAI, JUDGE SD. A. VARADARAJA IYENGAR, JUDGE 2 is the Forest Guard who had to make On the second point also the plaintiff is The plaintiff's grievahc e in regard to The evidence of Ds 1 to 4, which has been tiff claimsRs. 750. re ve admitted ly sold to otherpersons. plaintiff did not want. accepted by the court below, shows that after the agreement the pla:in-. tiff visited the properties and selected the trees he wanted, th.c::,t all these trees were felled and sold to the plaintif f, and that the defendants have sold to other persons only the trees which the defendants should have sold to' him under- the contract and v..hich they of certain trees in the properties which according to him the that point is the disallowance of a cJ.aim for damages in respect Therefore the first point urged· in the appeal 11:: s to be decided 2 · : under this head to be unsus ta inable. fails and· is dismissed with costs. 29.5.1956 the v~rific::,tions~n· connec½'.ion with the issue of• the ne·cessary pass V!e do not see any reason to differ from the court below as to the 8redibility of these witnesses, and in the light of the evidence ~ ' the se witnesses f ±lWIESE we consider the plaintiff's claim • ... against the plaintiff. not entitled to succeed . l wake. l s.s. 4 a.k.- 7--s t '.D:eputy Registrar For Registral'.' I true copy I .~ , I