The measure of damages for breach of contract is the natural and probable consequences of the breach.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises praying for specific performance of a contract, in the alternative for declaration of title in respect of certain lands the plaintiff and the defendants being partners, or for damages and certain other reliefs. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part in a preliminary form holding inter alia that the plaintiff was entitled to damages which were to be determined in the manner indicated in the judgment.

( 2 ) THE defendant 1 has preferred this appeal and it has been maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff has also preferred a cross objection claiming a larger amount of compensation than what has been allowed.

( 3 ) PRABHUDAYAL Agarwalla defendant 1 had been trying to 'obtain settlement from the khas Mahal department of the Government a plot of land for starting a rice mill at Alipore Duars in the district of Jalpaiguri. Other parties also entered into competition for obtaining the said plot. The plaintiff was one of those who also attempted to obtain settlement. To avoid competition among themselves an agreement was executed on 25-8-1945 between the plaintiff Ramkumar and the defendant Prabhudayal and Maidhan. They agreed that Prabhudayal alone would submit tenders for the settlement of the plot in question and such offer will be deemed to be on behalf of all three. Prabhudayal would be merely a benamdar for three of them and they as partners were to contribute their shares of capital within one month from the date of the execution of the Pattah to be obtained from the Government; a regular deed of partnership for the business including the right over the land to be executed by them. Prabhudayal would have a 7 annas share and the other two would have 41/2 annas share each.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the above agreement an offer was made by Prabhudayal alone on 31-8-1945. Ultimately the Khas Mahal officer informed Prabhudayal on 14-2-1946 that settlement of the plot would be made with him at a certain annual rent and a lump sum selami. Prabhudayal was sent a copy of the order with the intimation that the lease would be liable to cancellation if the business be shared in partnership. On the 3rd April following a lease was actually executed to run for "30 years, subject to certain other terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed was that in the event of failure to set up the mill in a working order within six months from the date of execution of the lease for whatever cause it might be, the lease was liable to be cancelled without any compensation. Rs. 2050, fixed as selami was deposited by Prabhudayal. On 17-4-1946 a ceremony was held at the site for laying the foundation of the Mill.

( 5 ) ON 13-5-1946 Prabhudayal wrote to Ramkumar stating inter alia that it had already been intimated by the former to the latter that as the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri was against allowing a partnership business the idea of a partnership between themselves had been abandoned. Prabhudayal accordingly took steps to start the mill with his own money and as a personal business of his. A large sum of money had already been invested by him personally.

( 6 ) ON the 8th June following Ramkumar wrote back denying that the agreement previously entered into had been abandoned, or, that Prabhudayal had informed the former of the objections raised about a partnership business being started. Certain letters were exchanged between the parties repeating the allegations and counter allegations. The last of the correspondence was dated 9-9-1946 and the present suit was filed on the 11th September.

( 7 ) RAMKUMAR alone filed the suit for the alternative reliefs already mentioned. Defendant 1 resisted the plaintiff's claim on the various grounds.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff claimed not only that the agreement dated 5-8-1945 had been acted upon but certain articles had been supplied by the plaintiff for the buildi