BADRI PRASAD versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 11-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BADRI PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
October 11, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Abolition of Proprietary Rights 
(Estates, Mahals Alienated Lands) 
Act, (M.P. 1 of 1951)-Forests and trees in Jagir-If vest in Stal'. 
Contract to cut timber-If sale of ascertained goods-Sale of Goods 
Act (3 of 1930), s. 19---0[fer' and acceptance-Reservation in 
accep-
tance-If concluded contract. 
The appellant entered into a contract in respect of certain forests in 
a Jagir in Madhya Pradesh. Under cl. 1 of the contract, he was entitled 
to cut teak trees of more than 12 inches girth. 
Under cl. 5, the stumps 
of trees after cutting, had to be 3 inches high. After the passing of 
the Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals. Alienated Lands) 
Act, 1950 a notification was issued vesting the estate in the State. and 
the appellant was prohibited from cutting timber in exercise of his rights 
under the contract After some negotiations, a letter was written on 
February 1, 1955, to the appellant, on behalf of the State, that 
the 
appellant's claim to cut trees under the contract would be considered 
only if he gave up his claim to a sum of Rs. 17 ,000 which he had already 
paid under tho contract and was willing to pay a further sum 
of 
Rs. 17,000. The appellant, by his letter dated February 5, 1955 ex-
pressed his willingness to pay the additional sum but reserved his right 
to claim a refund of the first sum. The State Government rejected the 
appellant's right to cut trees. 
He then filed a suit claiming specific 
performance of the contract on the grounds : ( 1) The forest and trees 
did not vest in the State under the Act; (2) Even if they vested, the 
standing timber, having been sold to the ·appellant,. did not vest in the 
State; and (3) In any event a new contract was completed on February 
5, 1955, and the appellant was entitled to its specific performance. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The forest and trees vested in the State under the Act.· 
(390 F----0] 
Mahadeo v. State of Bombay, (1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 339; State of 
M.P. v. Yakinuddin, (1963] 3 S.C.R. 13 and Mulamchand v. State of 
M.P., C.A No 393 of 1965 dated February 20, 1968, followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(2) Under the contract the appellant had not become the owner of 
tho trees as goods. The property in the timber could pass to the ap-
G 
reliant only when the trees are felled, but before they were felled, the 
trees had vested in the State. [391 B] 
Under cl. 5 of the contract there was no sale of the whole of the 
trees, and', under cl. 1 it had to be ascertained which trees fell within 
the description of trees which the appellant was entitled to cut. 
Till 
that was done they were not 'ascertained goods' within s. 19 of the Sale 
of Goods Act 1930. [391 A-Bl 
H 
(3) Even if .the Jetter of !st February could be treated as an offer, 
there was no tinconditional acceptance of the offer, because, there was 
• 
• 
• 
• 
BADRI PRASAD JI. M. P. STATE (Sikri, /.) 
:!8 l 
A 
a reservation by the appellant of his right to claim refund in. his letter 
.-
dated 5th February and hence there. was no concluded contract. 
[391 
C-D) 
·-
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
18 
of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree, dated 
October 9, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First 
Appeal No. 94 of 1959. 
G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
l. N. Shroff, for respondent No. l. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing 
the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh and dismissing the suit 
brought by the appellant, Badri Prasad-hereinafter referred to as 
the plaintiff . 
D 
The relevant facts for determining the po~ts raised before us 
are these. 
On December 27, 1950, a contract was entered into 
between Kumar Bharat Shah, ininor, through his guardian, and the 
plaintiff, in respect of forests in Mouza Sunderpani Jagir. 
The 
terms were reduced to writing and an agreement was signed on 
January 21, 19 51. It is necessary to reproduce the agreement in 
E 
extenso as it would be necessary to interpret it carefully. 
F 
G 
H 
"Deed of agreement executed by Shri Kumar Bharat 
Shah minor, guardian Shrimati Rani Umakuar Sahiba, 
Jagirdar of Mouza Sunderpani. 
Conditions of contract, area, forest Mouza Sunderpani. 
1. Out of the area of 1704.46 acres of Mouz

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.