TARKESHWAR NATH, J. :- The defendants are the in First Appeal No. 382 of 1959, whereas plaintiffs are the in the other appeal, First Appeal No. 384 of 1959, and these two appeals arise out of Money Suit No. 106 of 1952 instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,34,213/2/9 in the following circumstances : Plaintiff alleged that he was the sole proprietor of the concern "Rai Bahadur Hardutta Rai Motilal Jute Mills" (Plaintiff 2). Plaintiffs case was that they entered into a contract with the Regional Grain Supply Officer of Purnea who was acting on behalf of the State of Bihar on 17-8-1946 for the supply of one lac maunds of local paddy at the rate of Rs. 6/12/ - per maund and one and a half lac maunds of Nepal paddy at the rate of Rs. 7/2/- per maund. Besides that, there was also a contract for the supply of rice and the plaintiffs per-formed their part of the contract to the entire satisfaction of the Government and there was dispute between the parties regarding any supply of paddy and rice. Plaintiffs submitted their bill on 17-1-1947 charging an actual shortage at the rate of 1½ seers per maund in respect of the supply of paddy and rice and the amount with regard to that shortage came to Rs. 43,314/1/9. At the time of the final adjustment of the said bill, the District Supply Officer, Purnea, allowed shortage at the rate of 3 chataks only per maund (½ % per hundred maund), the amount of which at that rate came to Rs. 3,810/6/-; in other words, he did not allow shortage to the extent of Rs. 39,503/11/9. Plaintiffs had to purchase paddy sometimes in Nepal and on other occasions in the district of Purnea, carry it to the nearest godowns and store it for a considerable period before despatching it to different districts and mills under Government orders. There was thus a shortage under four heads : (i) on account of dryage during the period the paddy was kept in godown, (ii) while carrying paddy from villages and market to godowns (in) ravages by rats and other insects, and (iv) while carrying paddy from godown to Rail heads for despatch. This claim for Rs. 39,503/11/9 was mentioned in item (A) of the schedule of the plaint.

Plaintiffs had to pay rent of the various godowns in Nepal and in Purnea district for storing the paddy and they paid rent to the extent of Rs. 19,272/6/6, but the claim made in respect thereof in the bill dated 13-1-1947 was disallowed without any justification. This formed the subject-matter of the claim indicated in item.

(B) of the plaint schedule. Plaintiffs supplied 1,04,884 maunds 23 seers of local paddy, but the District Supply Officer deducted 5602 maunds 11 seers and did not pay the price thereof, although the Government was liable to pay it. The plaintiffs were entitled to a sum of Rs. 39,215/14/- and this was mentioned in item (C) of the schedule. During the period of Barter scheme. Government had directed the plaintiffs to pay 20% of profit on the purchase of cloth to the importers and those importers used to retain 8½% as their own profit and they had to deposit the remaining 11½% in the government treasury according to the rules. Plaintiffs paid full amount on account of the price of the cloth and the profit at the rate of 20%, but, in spite of that, the District Supply Officer wrongly deducted a sum of Rs. 29,774/- from their bill dated 13-1-1947. If the importer" did not deposit the required amount, it was their fault and the plaintiffs were not liable to pay any sum on their behalf. This claim was mentioned in item (D) of the schedule. According to the Barter scheme, the plaintiffs supplied 11,840 maunds of paddy to Katihar Rice and Oil Mills and they were entitled to get from the Government 47,360 yards of cloth but they got only 7,104 yards of cloth. In that manner, 12.255 yards of cloth were still due and the price thereof at the rate of Re. 1/- per yard came to Rs. 40,256 indicated in item (E) of the schedule.

The plaintiffs had to supply rice to the Government a