HIRACHAND KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal on certificate raises two questions, namely (1) Whether the parties by mutual consent had agreed to appoint D. N. Gupta, Superintending Engineer and Town Planning Officer, Jaipur to ascertain the value of the disputed land as an appraiser or valuer and therefore the appraisement or valuation thereof by him in his Report (Exh. 5) dated February 21, 1956 at Rs. 35,826.50 p. should be treated as an admission under S. 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872, on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim for damages had to be decreed, and (2) Whether the plaintiff being deprived of property was, on general principles, entitled to payment of interest on the amount payable to him as the value of the property taken by the State Government.

(2.) The facts bearing on the questions are briefly stated. In accordance with the terms of the registered deed of exchange executed by the parties on July 16, 1951, the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 120/50 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City whereunder the State Government agreed to give in exchange plot No. 0/17 located in C Scheme on resumption of his plot bearing No. C/91 in the same scheme and handed over possession to the State Government of the aforesaid plot No. C/91, but the State Government on their part did not give possession of the exchanged plot to him, in consequence whereof the appellant instituted a suit for possession of the exchanged plot and for mesne profits thereof against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 270/51 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The State Government in their written statement pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable since the plot which was to be given in exchange to the appellant did not belong to them, but did not disclose as to whom the said plot belonged. The appellant therefore served interrogatories on the State Government. In reply to the said interrogatories it was revealed in the affidavit filed by the State Government that the exchanged plot had been transferred to Thakur Harisingh of Achrol under the orders of the Home Minister, Government of India dated January 8, 1945 and that plot No. C/91 which belonged to the appellant was then in possession of the Raj Pramukh Maharaja Mansinghji of Jaipur. The appellant accordingly impleaded Thakur Harisingh of Achrol as a defendant in the suit and sought permission from the Central Government under S. 86 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to join Maharaja Mansinghji of Jaipur as a party to the suit. Thakur Harisingh of Achrol being impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed his written statement and raised an objection that the valuation of the land in dispute was Rs. 40,000 and the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That objection of his was sustained and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated October 15, 1955 returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) It transpires that the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India addressed a letter dated January 3,1956 to the late Shri Mohan Lal Sukhadia, the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan conveying that it was felt that the appellant had a case and should be given the exchange plot and if that was not feasible, he should be restored to his original position and therefore could claim back possession of plot No. C/91. At the instance of the Chief Minister, the Deputy Minister for Local Self Government gave a hearing to the plaintiff on January 12, 1956 in the presence of the Secretary, Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur. On February 3, 1956, the Chief Minister addressed a. letter to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, conveying the anxiety of the State Government to settle the claim of the appellant and intimated that the appellant had agreed to the appointment of D. N. Gupta, Town Planning Officer as the assessor who had been asked to assess the value of the land and submit his report by Ferbuary 20, 1956. He therefore requested the Government of India to defer its decision in fairness to the State Government for a couple of months as it was felt that it might be possible to settle the matter without any unreasonable delay,