Contractual claim must rest on the original lease, while a machinery award needs proof of existence, value, and takeover.

A claim for loss and damages was treated as arising under the original lease agreement, with the later arrangement operating only as an alternative method of working out contractual rights, so the constitutional objection based on section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir failed. The machinery decree, however, was not supported by adequate proof: the claimant had not satisfactorily established the existence, value, or actual taking over of the machinery, and the award could not rest on conjecture or weakness in the defence. That part of the decree was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination on the machinery-related issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for loss and damages was barred by section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir on the footing that it was based on the arrangement rather than the lease agreement; (ii) Whether the decree for Rs. 8,50,000 towards machinery was sustainable on the evidence and, if not, whether the matter required remand for fresh determination.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for loss and damages was barred by section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir on the footing that it was based on the arrangement rather than the lease agreement.

Analysis: The claim was founded on the rights and obligations arising under the lease agreement. The reference to the later arrangement was only alternative and related to the manner of working out the contractual rights, not to novation of the original contract. Since the courts below had not proceeded on any novation, the claim did not rest on the arrangement in the sense required to attract the constitutional objection.

Conclusion: The constitutional objection failed and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for Rs. 8,50,000 towards machinery was sustainable on the evidence and, if not, whether the matter required remand for fresh determination.

Analysis: The decree was based essentially on uncorroborated oral evidence, without adequate proof of the existence of the machinery, its value, or its actual taking over and control by the State or the Forest Department. The claimant bore the burden of proving these foundational facts, and they could not be treated as established by conjecture or by the weakness of the defence. As the evidentiary basis was unsatisfactory, the decree on this head could not stand. The proper course was to set aside that part of the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration on the limited questions relating to the machinery.

Conclusion: The decree for Rs. 8,50,000 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination on the machinery-related issues.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge was rejected, but the machinery decree was not sustained and the dispute on that component was sent back for reconsideration; the remaining directions were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim must be tested on the basis of the contract on which it is founded, and a money decree cannot rest on conjecture where the claimant has not proved the existence, value, and taking over of the property in question.

---