J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) THAKUR Randhirshah, Jagirdar of Sonpur Jagir executed adeed dated 5/08/1949,in favour of Ram Narain Mahto-hereinafter called, the plaintiff"-relating to sale of timber, for Rs. 51,501.00 and received Rs. 15,000.00 in part payment. On 19/02/1951, the Forest Officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh prevented the plaintiff and the Jagirdar from cutting the trees. On 31/03/1951, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I 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 14/06/1954, the plaintiff instituted an action in the court of the Additional District Judge. Chhindwara, for a decree for Rs. 1,50,000.00 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 4,275 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 6,000 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.

@Þf The plaintiff claimed compensation for the logs of timber at the rate of Rs. 5.00 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 31/03/1953, subject to certain conditions, e. g., obtaining Malguzari passes for the transit and submitting weekly statement of the removal, that the agreement) dated 5/08/1949, 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 the value of the logs of timber described under the four heads of his claim, at the rate of Rs. 1/8.00 per log. Accordingly the Trial court determined the compensation payable to the plaintiff at Rs. 46,912.00 and after giving credit for Rs. 36,000.00 payable by the plaintiff to the Jagirdar and to which the State became entitled, passed a decree for the balance of Rs. 10,912.00 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. 1/800. The High court disallowed the claim of the plaintiff for items (ii), (iii) and (iv) and for item (i) the High court allowed Rs. 3,712.00 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.

(4) COUNSEL for the plaintiff urged that the courts below were in error holding: (1) that the rate per log of timber was Rs. 1/8.00 ; (2) that the High court erred in disallowing compensation for 6,000.00 logs of timber which were cut and appropriated by the plaintiff but which were on account of negligence of the servants of the State either burnt or stolen ; (3) that the High court erred in disallowing compen