STATE OF U P Vs. INDRAMANI JATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar in civil appeal No. 305 of 1952 which itself arose out of suit No. 420 of 1950 of the Court of Munsif, Khurja.

(2.) The suit was filed by Smt. Indramani Jatia for recovery of Rs. 1800/- as damages against the State of Uttar Pradesh and three other defendants Dharam Deo, Shib Dayal and Jai Gopal, who were defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. It appears that one Kanchilal was a tenant in the house which is the subject-matter of this litigation, and was, paying Rs. 60/- per month as rent to the owner Smt. Indramani Jatia. Kanchhilal was probably a member of the Rashtriya Swamasewak Sangh, which body was declared an unlawful association in February, 1948, under Section 17-A of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 14 of 1908 (to be referred hereafter as the Act). Kanchhi Lal was probably also keeping the office of the Sangh in this house and it was consequently taken possession' of by the Government under subsection (2) of Section 17-A of the aforesaid Act. The notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 17-A was withdrawn on 16th July, 1949, but in the mean time this property had been allowed to be occupied by respondents 2 to 4 on payment of Rs. 20 per month as rent. These three respondents continued to remain in possession of the premises even after 16th July, 1949, and rent also continued to be realised from them by the State Government. The plaintiff Smt. Indramani Jatia claimed damages from the State Government on account of having been deprived of rent of this premises for the period 16th February 1948 to 18th August 1950 at Rs. 60/- per month. The suit was contested by the State Government. The Munsif held that under Section 17-F of the Act the plaintiff could not claim any damages from the State Government for the period during which notification under Section 17-A (i) was in force and the suit for recovery for damages for that period was therefore dismissed. He however held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages at Rs. 60/- per month since 17th July, 1949, and therefore decreed the suit for the period 16th July, 1949, to 18th August, 1950, at Rs. 60/- per month.

(3.) The State of Uttar Pradesh went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. It was contended before the Civil Judge that the State Government was not liable in damages even for the subsequent period and that if the officers of the Government were responsible for any tort, they may be liable for damages. The amount of damages was also challenged. The Civil Judge did not accept these contentions and held that the State Government was liable in damages and that the amount of damages was also correctly assessed. The State of Uttar Pradesh has now come up in second appeal.