1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decisionof the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 28th August1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiffsued for damages for breach of a contract with reference to the sale of timbergrowing on certain jungle, the property of the plaintiff. The facts as foundare perfectly simple, namely, that the defendants out and removed the timbergrowing on certain portions of the jungle and that they had paid in advance inexcess of the value of the timber so removed. Under the terms provided for bythe contract, the plaintiff now wants damages from the defendants. There seemto be two answers to the plaintiffs contention. The first answer is thatapparently the plaintiff himself was in default under the contract in nothaving agreed to have a measurement. If that was so, of course, the plaintiffcannot recover damages in respect of a contract, that he committed a breach of.The second answer is that the plaintiff, purporting to act under the terms ofthe contract, resumed possession of the forest and got back all the timber theprice of which he now seeks to recover from the defendants. The plaintiff hasgiven no evidence that he suffered any damages. It may be that to-day orto-morrow he will be able to re-sell the timber for an equal or a larger pricethan what he had sold it for to the defendants. He cannot get damages from thedefendants without proving what damage he had suffered and what was thepecuniary loss that happened to him by reason of the defendants not havingcarried out their part of the contract. It is quite possible in this case,without coming to any conclusion as to what is the actual meaning of certainparts of the contract, to say that the plaintiff having failed to perform hispart of the contract and there being no evidence that he suffered any loss atall as to the timber for which he now seeks to recover, damages cannot succeedin the present suit. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissedwith costs, such costs to be paid only to the contesting defendant No. 3.

.

Raja Narendra Lal Khanvs. Manmotha Ranjan Pal and Ors.(28.05.1918 - CALHC)