The requirements of a valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the determination of the date of accrual of cause of action for the purpose of limitation.

( 1 ) THE State of West Bengal is appellant in this appeal, and the two respondents are the two plaintiffs of the Trial Court who have sued both in their personal capacity and also as Kartas of a joint Hindu family consisting of themselves and their sons. The suit was instituted by the respondents in the Trial Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6535/8/6 pies as damages on a certain contract to which we shall presently refer.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the appellant State on the ground that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure purporting to have been served upon the Government was not a legal and valid notice and the suit was barred by limitation. A further plea was taken that the amount claimed by way of damages was excessive.

( 3 ) THE Trial Court overruled the legal objections taken on behalf of the State and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for Rs. 5901/6as, with corresponding costs. This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal from the above judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

( 4 ) THE genesis of this suit is contained in an agreement for purchase of paddy and supply of rice by a rice mill known as Mahabir Rice Mill of which the respondents are the proprietors. An agreement was entered into between the Government and the said rice mill on 17-5-1948, when rice was a controlled commodity. The gist of the agreement is that the Assistant Regional Controller of procurement would sell paddy to the mill at a certain rate, and the mill would convert the paddy into rice and sell the same to the former according to the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. In the present suit we are concerned with clause 7 of the agreement which runs in the following terms ;"7. That the mill undertakes to hand over a minimum quantity of Ninteen hundred and twenty five maunds of rice from the particular lot of paddy purchased. This quantity has been fixed by the A. R. C. P. as based on the calculations made in fixing the price of paddy representing an out turn of 381/2 seers of rice per 60 seers of amon paddy, subject to the final milling test. The mills also agree that the total weight of paddy purchased by the mills and delivered by Government, will be accepted along with 3 p. c. of refraction consisting of dust and other foreign matters and any excess retraction is to be refunded by Government or deducted from the total quantity delivered".

( 5 ) FROM the above mentioned clause in the agreement it would appear that the mill agreed to make an allowance upto three per cent, on account of refraction which means the presence of dust and other foreign matters in the paddy. If there was any refraction in excess of that percentage then the mill was entitled to get the value thereof from Government. Admittedly, large quantities of paddy were delivered by Government to Mahabir Rice Mill, and the mill also delivered back the resultant paddy to Government. It was the case of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court that after conducting milling tests, it was found that the refraction was much higher than three per cent, in respect of a large quantity of paddy. The annexures to the plaint set forth the total quantity of refraction, and in a schedule to the plaint the value of the refraction has been stated to be Rs. 6535/8/6 pies. After a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that the value of excess refraction to which the plaintiffs are entitled is Rs. 5901/6as. In the present appeal, Mr. Chakravarti, learned Government Pleader, was not in a position to question the correctness of this figure seriously.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court examined the question of excess refraction in some detail. It prepared a chart in a tabular form and came to the conclusion that in respect of eight deliveries the total value of excess refraction was Rs. 5901/6 as. This conclusion was arrived at by the Trial Court not only on a consid