SADIQ SUHEEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant Sadiq Suheel against the respondents, the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi, the Regional Settlement Commissioner and Custodian of Evacuee Property in Mysore State, the State of Mysore and the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, wherein he sought to recover a sum of Rs.27,469-69 being the amount due to him for having managed the estate called 'Belagode Estate' which was declared as an evacuee property in the year 1949. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.13,597-42 as interest thereon from 1-1-1953 to 28-3-1961 at 6 per cent per annum. The claim of the plaintiff upto 28-3-1961 is for Rs.41,067-11 less Rs.12,261-11, received by him on 14-4-1961 from defendant 2 by a cheque dated 28-3-1961. On the balance interest is claimed at 6 per cent per annum from 29-3-1961 to date of suit and notice charges. In all the suit is for a total sum of Rs.33,670. Plaintiff is an Advocate of this Court Mrs Vasia Begum is his wife. She purchased a coffee estate known as "Belagode Estate' situate in Chickmagalur District from one Samada Shabeen brother of the plaintiff. The State of Mysore promulgated an Ordinance by which it was required that sales effected by persons who had left India for Pakistan prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance should be confirmed by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property who, in the then State of Mysore, was the Revenue Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioners of each District were appointed Deputy Custodians The plaintiff's wife accordingly applied to the said custodian for confirmation of the sale. The Custodian referred that application of the plaintiff to defendant 4 for enquiry. In the proceedings before the fourth defendant in No.E.P.29/49-50 the Deputy Custodian did not confirm the sale, but declared it as an Evacuee property. The wife of the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Custodian, but was unsuccessful. Her revision to the Custodian-General of India in E.P.Revision No. 465/R-52 also failed.

(2.) Taking into consideration the nature of the property which was a coffee estate, the Deputy Custodian appointed the plaintiff to manage the property as in his opinion the plaintiff was a competent person having experience in the management of coffee estates. This was on 29-10-1949. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff was appointed to manage the estate. But there is no material on record placed by either party to show the terms under which he was so appointed. Therefore, we have to take it that the plaintiff was appointed to manage the estate in its best interests. It follows therefore, that if the plaintiff incurred any expenditure in his capacity as Manager of the estate and for its benefit, the Custodian is liable to reimburse him the amounts so spent The maintenance of coffee estates, as is generally known, involves expenditure such as appointing managers, maistries, labourers etc., incurring expenditure to maintain trees, on manure and such other expenses necessary to maintain an estate. The plaintiff used to send the coffee produce to the Coffee Board to the account of the Deputy Custodian and whatever moneys were payable by the Board were being credited to the account of the Deputy Custodian. The plaintiff had no authority whatsoever to withdraw any moneys. The evidence in this case shows that the plaintiff got some income from subsidiary crops like cardamom, oranges, soap-nut etc., and it is not disputed that he credited the amounts realised by their sale also to the account of the Deputy Custodian. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff was submitting accounts to the Deputy Custodian periodically supported by vouchers. There is also evidence which is not controverted that the Deputy Custodian used to inspect the estate and the accounts maintained by the plaintiff from time to time. From the nature of the management of the estate it is clear that the plaintiff as an Agent of the Deputy Custodian had to spend large sums of moneys for the upkeep of the estate.

(3.) It is not also disputed that the plaintiff managed the estate for three years from 1949 to 1952 for and on behalf of the Deputy Custodian, For the subsequent two years the estate had been leased out to the plaintiff with which period, we are not concerned in this case. Even prior to the handing over possession of the estate to the Deputy Custodian on 26-4-1954, the plaintiff was requesting the Deputy Custodian to settle his claim in respect of the cost of management for the three years and by his petition dated 25-8-1952 which is marked as Ext.P-1 in the case, he claimed a sum of Rs.29,643-5-3 and requested for the interim payment of Rs.13,000. The plaintiff received a reply (Ext. P2) dated 7/10-9-1952 from the Custodian to the effect that the request of the plaintiff could not be considered till the completion of the audit. Thereafter, the accounts of the plaintiff were got audited by the Custodian and Ext.P-3 dated 13-12-1952 is the letter of the Auditor forwarding along with it Ext.P-S(d), his report. As per the report of the Auditor, a sum of Rs.27,469-11-0 was found to be due towards expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for the upkeep of the estate and its management for the three years referred to above. After the accounts were audited and the report was submitted to the Custodian, the plaintiff addressed a letter (Ext.P-4) dated 28-6-1955 to the Custodian requesting him to pay him a sum of Rs.27,469-11-0 as certified by the Auditor. It appears that the office of the Custodian tried to expedite the matter, but for reasons not known the claim of the plaintiff was not settled. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice (Ex.P-6) dated 16-12-1955 calling Upon the authorities to pay the admitted amount of Rs.27,469-11-0 forthwith failing which, he would take necessary steps to recover the said amount in a competent court of law. To that the plaintiff received an endorsement (Ext.P-7) dated 17-2-1956 from the office of the Custodian which reads as follows: ENDORSEMENT His claim for payment of Rs.27,469-11-0 due from Evacuee, Belagodu Estate, Chickmagalur District. Shri Shidiq Suheel is requested to confirm if he is agreeble to receive an interim payment of Rs.6,000 towards his claim as agreed to on 16th February 1956 during the hearing of the claim petition pending further examination of accounts.