SHANTI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's ap peal. He had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages against the State of U. P. and two others. The defendant No. 2 was the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar Rampur and the defendant No. 3 was the then Sales Tax Officer, Rampur. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 100/- against the State of U. P. and dismissed it against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the claim against them was barred by time. The State of U. P. preferred an appeal from the said decree. The appellate Court below allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed against the State. Thus the entire suit stood dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff hat come to this Court in the second appeal.

(2.) THE only point of law urged be fore me was that the State was vicariously liable for the tort committed by its employ ees in due course of their employment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1039 were not applicable to the instant case. This submission has no merits.

(3.) IN Kasturi Lal's case (supra) the Supreme Court laid down that: