Judgment :- 1. State has filed appeal challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.19 of 1980 of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The respondent plaintiff filed the suit claiming Rs.12,500/- as damages. Suit was decreed by the trial Court. 2. Second defendant held auction on 21-7-1977 of Coupe No.1 in Mannarmala belonging to the Forest Department. Plaintiff was declared the successful bidder and the sale was confirmed. Case of the plaintiff is that major portion of the trees was cut and removed by him, that one Kuttan obstructed removal of timber on the ground that the property belongs to him, that though some help was rendered to the plaintiff by the forest officials he could not remove timber and firewood before the expiry of the contract viz. 31-3-1979, that on account of Kuttan's obstruction plaintiff suffered loss and that the defendants are liable for damages. 3. Second defendant filed written statement contending inter-alia that the State is not responsible for any loss sustained by the plaintiff as no breach was committed by the Stale or its officers causing any loss to the plaintiff and that the department is not in any way responsible for the obstruction caused to the plaintiff by a stranger. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the trial Court was entirely wrong in fixing responsibility on the defendants for the payment of compensation overlooking the fact that the State or its officers were not in any way responsible for the plaint claim. He also submitted that the damages under S.73 of the Indian Contract Act can be granted only in a case where there was a breach of the contract or agreement by the State or its officers and as there is no such allegation in the plaint the suit ought to have been rejected by the trial Court. 5. S.73 of the Indian Contract Act applies to a case where a contract is broken by the failure or refusal to perform any part of the agreement. A breach occurs where a party repudiates or fails to perform one or more of the obligations as per the terms of the contract. Certainly S.73 can be invoked to a contract where there are outstanding mutual and interdependent conditions and obligations. A breach occurs where a party repudiates or fails to perform one or more of the obligations as per the terms of the contract. Certainly S.73 can be invoked to a contract where there are outstanding mutual and interdependent conditions and obligations. In a case where a third party objected or stood in the way of the plaintiff, exercising his right under the contract he could have resisted it by taking legal action against the third party and without doing so it is futile to claim damages from the defendants. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kuttan had filed Original Application against the State and on the strength of filing the O.A. he caused obstructions to the plaintiff in the removal of timber from the property. Admittedly, Kuttan had not obtained any injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from removing the timber and logs. It is in evidence that at the time when the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants the O.A. filed by Kuttan was not pending. In fact at the time of the contract O.A. stood dismissed. Merely because Kuttan had filed appeal against the order in the O.A. it cannot be said that the plaintiff was prevented from removing the timber from the property particularly when no order was passed by the appellate Court preventing plaintiff from removing the timber. Mere filing of an appeal against the order in O.A. cannot make any inroad into the rights of the plaintiff under the contract. 7. If damage occurred under the usual course it might have been possible for the plaintiff to realise damages or compensation from the defendants. For remote possibility of any damage sustained by the plaintiff defendants cannot be made answerable. Plaintiff has no case that at the time of contract Kuttan was in possession of any portion of the property or at least there was likelihood of any impediments being caused to the plaintiff by a third party. In Karsandas v. Saran Engineering Co. For remote possibility of any damage sustained by the plaintiff defendants cannot be made answerable. Plaintiff has no case that at the time of contract Kuttan was in possession of any portion of the property or at least there was likelihood of any impediments being caused to the plaintiff by a third party. In Karsandas v. Saran Engineering Co. (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1981) the Supreme Court held that on a breach of contract by one party the other party is entitled to receive compensation for any loss for the damage caused to him which naturally arose in the usual course of business from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Under S.73 damages can be awarded when a party to the contract suffers damages in the usual course of things from the breach of contract and when no breach has been established the party claiming damages cannot rely on any impediment caused to him by a third party which he himself could have thwarted by resorting to necessary legal action. Where the plaint allegations do not reveal any contravention of the terms of the contract by the defendants there is no scope for invoking S.73 of the Contract Act to the aid of the plaintiff. One of the fundamental rules in awarding damages is that the damages complained of must be such as it would flow from the breach of the duty in the ordinary and usual course of things. A party who is entitled to damages is required by law to take steps in mitigation of damages. As the plaintiff himself could have taken necessary steps to remove the obstruction caused by Kuttan and as nothing of that sort was done he cannot claim damages from the defendants. 8. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case that breach was committed by the defendants and that on account of it he is entitled to damages. There is nothing to show that plaintiff had taken any reasonable steps to mitigate the damages. Plaintiff merely informed the defendants about the obstruction caused by Kuttan. 8. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case that breach was committed by the defendants and that on account of it he is entitled to damages. There is nothing to show that plaintiff had taken any reasonable steps to mitigate the damages. Plaintiff merely informed the defendants about the obstruction caused by Kuttan. As the agreement does not provide that in such a situation it is the responsibility of the defendants to go to the assistance of the plaintiff and as he could have removed the obstruction by taking necessary legal action against Kuttan and as the defendants are not in any way liable for the wrongful acts of the third party, plaintiff cannot legally claim damages from the defendants. 9. To entitle a person to claim damages by reason of breach of contract the injury for which compensation is asked for should be one that may be fairly taken to have been contemplated by the parties as the possible result of breach of contract. Under S.73 regard must be given to the following two considerations: 1) Whether the loss or damage naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach or was such that the parties knew to be likely to result from the breach and 2) Whether the plaintiff had the means of remedying the inconvenience caused by the breach and neglected to avail himself of them. As it is evident from the pleadings itself that there was no breach of agreement on the part of the defendants and as plaintiffs specific case is that he sustained damages on account of obstructions caused by Kuttan, the defendants cannot be held liable for the damages. It is not possible to hold that plaintiff suffered any damages on account of the breach of the agreement committed by the defendants. At any rate, plaintiff himself could have remedied the inconveniences or difficulties he had encountered. As the plaintiff neglected to avail of the remedy of vindicating his legal right against Kuttan he cannot claim damages from the defendants. For the reasons stated above I find that the judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained. As I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages from the defendants, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside. The suit stands dismissed. For the reasons stated above I find that the judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained. As I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages from the defendants, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside. The suit stands dismissed. The Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Allowed.