Judgment B.P.SINHA, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 13 of 1964 on 11th Aug., 1965 by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dhanbad, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The West Ramkanali Colliery Company, a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, was plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the sole partners thereof. Formerly plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were members of an undivided Hindu Joint family but subsequently, on partition amongst themselves, they have formed into a co-partnership in the name and style of plaintiff No. 1. 3. According to the plaintiffs-appellants (hereafter referred to as the appellants), there was an agreement on 13th Nov., 1960 between them and the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited, the defendant-respondent in this appeal (hereafter referred to as the respondent) by which they had agreed to sell to the respondent who had agreed to purchase from them coal on the terms contained in the agreement. Under the terms of the said agreement the appellants had despatched coal to the respondent by railway wagons the freight of which was paid by them but subsequently they were repaid by the respondent on bills submitted by them. For the value of the coal that the appellants used to send separate bills were prepared in terms of the agreement and a certain sum was kept by the respondent by way of security. In pursuance of the terms of the agreement previous dues of the appellants on account of the price of coal and the cost of transport thereof were paid by the respondent according to the weight of the coal. Subsequently, on 10th December, 1960, during the continuation of the said agreement the respondent proposed to purchase 2000 tonnes of coal from the appellants which was to be transported by road on motor trucks. According to the appellants, save and except the alteration that the transport of coal would be by road on trucks instead of transport by rail, all other terms of the agreement dated 13th Nov., 1960 remained in force and operative between the parties and the respondent by its letter dated 10th Dec., 1960 (vide Annexure A to the plaint) had made the proposal which the appellants had accepted by their letter dated 13th Dec., 1960 (vide Annexure B). According to the appellants, they in terms of the subsequent agreement between them supplied to the respondent 2440.5 tonnes of coal which was transported by road on motor trucks and bills for the price of the coal and the cost of transport, according to weight, were sent to the respondent. The respondent had paid the amount as claimed by the appellants for the supply of coal and the transport charges by trucks and had returned the security money also except a sum of Rupees 11,464.13 N. P. which was a part of the price of the coal supplied by them to the respondent. 4. The appellants have admitted to have received from the respondent Rs. 38,952.00 in three instalments by way of part payment as the price of coal supplied by them but the respondent has not paid Rs. 11,464.13 N. P., the balance amount, in spite of demands made by them. According to the respondent the payment of the price of the coal was not to be made on the basis of weight but on the basis of measurement of the coal at the dump site of the respondent at Barauni. This plea of the respondent, according to the appellants, was entirely false and without any foundation and that was never agreed between the parties. 5. According to the appellants, the total value of the coal supplied to the respondent by the subsequent agreement by road on trucks was Rs. 50,971.10 N. P. and the respondent had paid on different dates a total sum of Rs. 38,952.00. Thus, according to the appellants, Rs. 11,46413 N. P. was due to them from the respondent as the price of coal supplied. They have also claimed Rs. 1,336.62 N. P. as balance amount of the transport cost, as according to them, the total cost of transport was Rs. 89,059.85 N. P. and they had already received Rs. 86,72602 N.P. They have further claimed Rupees 1,620.00 as interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus the total claim has been for a sum of Rs. 14,420.75 N. P. for the realisation of which they filed the suit as the respondent failed to pay the amount in spite of demand made and notice sent by the appellants. 6. 86,72602 N.P. They have further claimed Rupees 1,620.00 as interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus the total claim has been for a sum of Rs. 14,420.75 N. P. for the realisation of which they filed the suit as the respondent failed to pay the amount in spite of demand made and notice sent by the appellants. 6. On behalf of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union which was the sole defendant (respondent in this appeal) a written statement was filed denying the claim besides the usual defence that there was no cause of action for the suit, that it was not maintainable and that it was barred by limitation etc. The main defence of the respondent was that it had not proposed to purchase 2000 tonnes of coal as alleged by the appellants; that the agreement dated 13th November,1960 had expired towards the end of February 1961 and thereafter there was no question of supply of coal on the basis of that agreement. It has been further alleged that the appellants did not supply 2440.5 tonnes of coal as alleged by them and their claim of having supplied that quantity of coal was on the basis of weighment although the supply was to be made on the basis of measurement According to the respondent, by its letter No. 8265/67 dated 22nd/24th April, 1961 it had agreed to take supply of coal by road and had sent an agreement form to the appellants on the basis of mutual negotiation that the price of coal as well as transport charges would be paid on the basis of measurement of coal and the appellants, by their letter dated 30th April, 1961 had intimated the respondent that the supply of coal was being made on the bask of mutual nagotiation. Transport charges were, however, to be paid trucks could not be arranged on the basis of payment on measurement. According to the respondent, it was not liable for payment of the sum claimed by the appellants by way of price of coal, the transport charges or any interest. 7. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the court below:- "1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. 7. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the court below:- "1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to the amount claimed on account of the price of coal? 5. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled?" The court below decided issue No. 4 against the appellants as, according to it the appellants were not entitled to the amount as claimed by them. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the appellants and the suit was held to be maintainable. In view of the finding recorded on issue No. 4 which was really the main issue, the trial court held that the appellants had no cause of action for the suit and, accordingly, dismissed the same with costs. Hence that appeal. 8 After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the documents and the pleadings of the parties, one thing is clear beyond doubt that the appellants had supplied coal to the respondent by road on trucks during the period April to August, 1961. According the appellants, out of the total price of the coal, a sum of Rupees 11,464.13 N. P. remained to be paid to them by the respondent whereas according to the respondent nothing was due to be paid to them. 9. In this appeal only two points have to be decided; namely, (i) as to whether there was agreement between the parties to supply coal the price of which was to be paid by measurement or by weight. As already stated earlier, according to the appellants, the payment of price of the coal supplied by trucks was to be paid on weight basis whereas, according to the respondent, it was to be paid on measurement basis. The other point to be decided is whether there was actual supply of coal to the extent as claimed by the appellants and whether any amount remained due to be paid to the appellants on account of the supply of coal and transport charges as claimed by them in the suit. 10. The other point to be decided is whether there was actual supply of coal to the extent as claimed by the appellants and whether any amount remained due to be paid to the appellants on account of the supply of coal and transport charges as claimed by them in the suit. 10. No satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the appellants that the price of coal supplied by them to the respondent by trucks was to be paid by weight and not by measurement although according to the appellants, it was on weight basis whereas according to the respondent it was on measurement basis. But there is no satisfactory evidence on the side of the respondent either in support of the fact that the price of coal was to be paid on measurement basis. Since it was for the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, to prove their claim and since they have failed to prove that the price was to be paid on the basis of weight, it may be taken that the payment of price of coal supplied by them was to be made on measurement basis as claimed by the respondent. Besides that, there is no evidence that the coal supplied by trucks was actually weighed either at the starting place namely at the colliery of the appellants or at the destination at Barauni dump. On behalf of the appellants reliance has been placed on exhibit 8/a, a letter from the respondent to the appellants dated 10th December, 1960 wherein besides other things it is mentioned therein that "other terms and conditions will remain the same as are prevailing in the existing arrangement of supply by rail". It has been submitted that by existing arrangement the respondent has referred to the agreement (exhibit 7) between the parties by which the appellants were to supply coal to the respondent by rail at certain rate per tonne. In reply to that it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the previous agreement for supply of coal by rail had came to an end and another agreement was arrived at by which the supply was to be made by road on trucks and the price was to be paid on measurement basis, and not by weight. In reply to that it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the previous agreement for supply of coal by rail had came to an end and another agreement was arrived at by which the supply was to be made by road on trucks and the price was to be paid on measurement basis, and not by weight. Reference was also made to exhibit 8/c another letter by the respondent to the appellants dated 1st, February, 1961 where it is stated that the transport of coal was to be arranged by the appellants on their existing terms and conditions. However, appears from the letter (exhibit A/3) by the appellants to the officer-in-charge at the respondent dated 24th March, 1961 wherein it has been stated that the truck owners, for supply of coal want to be paid not by cubic measurement but by weight at the weighbridge at Biharsharif. There is yet another letter dated 22nd April, 1961 (Exhibit A) which was written by the officer-in-charge of the respondent to the appellants wherein it is stated in the concluding portion as follows:- "Further each loaded truck has also to be weighed at Biharsharif at your own cost against which measurement can he made by us at Barauni." 11 From the documents referred to above it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the respondent had agreed to pay the price of the coal supplied by road on trucks to the appellants by weight and not by measurement as claimed by the appellants. 12. Now the other question is whether the appellants actually supplied coal to the extent claimed by them and whether any part of the price thereof and transport charges had remained due to be paid to them by the respondent. The appellants have claimed to have supplied 2440.50 tonnes of coal the price of which, according to them comes to Rs. 50,416.13 N. P. out of which they claimed to have received Rs. 38,952 and the balance of Rs. 11,464.13 N. P. has not been paid to them. They have given the account of coal supplied on different dates in Schedule C of the plaint. 13. 50,416.13 N. P. out of which they claimed to have received Rs. 38,952 and the balance of Rs. 11,464.13 N. P. has not been paid to them. They have given the account of coal supplied on different dates in Schedule C of the plaint. 13. Besides filing the counterfoil of the bills in respect of supply of coal on different dates (exhibit 3 series) the appellants have also filed the series of letters written to them by the respondents (exhibit 6 series) in which the respondents has admitted to have received the quantity of coal supplied by the appellants on different dates, and in those letters the number of trucks, the measurement, quality and quantity of coal are all mentioned. The aforesaid letters (exhibit 6 series) were undoubtedly sent by the respondent to the appellants and so there is no reason to doubt their contents. Now, on calculation by learned counsel for the parties, the total quantity of coal supplied by the appellants, on the basis of measurement at the rate of 38 Cft. per tonne, approximately comes to 2151.08 tonnes. So, calculating the approximate price of Grade II coal at the rate of Rs. 19.50 per tonne of the aforesaid quantity of coal supplied to the respondent by the appellants comes to 2151.08 X 19.50 = Rs. 41,946.06. Admittedly, the appellants received Rs. 38,952 from the respondent. So they are entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 2,994.06 from the respondent as admitted in exhibit 6 series. 14. The appellants, in my opinion, have failed to prove that they were entitled to receive the sum claimed by them on the basis of supply of coal by them on weight basis. Therefore, they are entitled to the price of coal on the basis of exhibit 6 series in which the respondent has admitted to have received the supply of coal and mentioned the measurement and the equivalent weight on measurement basis. In that view of the matter, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,994.06 as the balance of the price of coal supplied by them to the respondent with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit and proportionate costs in this Court and the trial court. In that view of the matter, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,994.06 as the balance of the price of coal supplied by them to the respondent with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit and proportionate costs in this Court and the trial court. Since the appellants have failed to adduce any reliable evidence on which their claim in respect of the unpaid transport cost can be ascertained, in my opinion, they are not entitled to any decree in respect of the same. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with interest and costs as indicated above. UDAY SINHA, J. 16 I agree.