(1.) THIS is a Plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction to direct the Defendants to return to the Plaintiffs four arms namely a revolver No. 17528, D.B.L. gun Hammerless No. 532/502, Rifle No. 1378 and0 one D.B.B.L gun with Hammer No. 21/466. A relief in the alternative contemplated by Order 20, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for the amount of money in case the delivery of goods be not possible was also claimed. Plaintiffs further claimed interest on the value of the four items of arms and also damages for the alleged torturous acts of the Respondents.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that they were dealers in arms and for that they had a licence under the Arms Act. This licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on September 2, 1948. On the licence being cancelled the entire arms and ammunitions were to be deposited in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate in the police armoury. Thereafter Plaintiffs made effort for the return of the arms but as the licence had not been granted in their favour they could not get them; their efforts to sell or dispose of the arms also failed. Ultimately on 27 -6 -1950 the District Magistrate informed the Plaintiffs that according to some order of the State Government the arms and ammunitions had stood forfeited. The Plaintiffs did not accept that the forfeiture order was valid and went on making efforts to get permission to dispose of the arms. Ultimately on 13 -11 -1956 the District Magistrate passed a formal order of forfeiture. Against this order Plaintiffs went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner. According to the Commissioner the order dated 13 -11 -1956 was no order in the eye of law. The District Magistrate was accordingly required to pass a proper order of forfeiture. On 27 -4 -57 the District Magistrate passed an order of forfeiture making it effective retrospectively from 13 -11 -1956. The Plaintiffs again filed an appeal against this order. The Commissioner on 25 -4 -58 allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Magistrate by making it effective for six months after the date of the order that is 25 -4 -58. On the basis of this order all the arms and ammunitions were permitted to be disposed of by the Plaintiffs except the four arms which are the subject matter of the present suit. The Plaintiffs were informed that these four items had been sold away after the forfeiture order had been passed by the District Magistrate on 13 -11 -56, and before that order was superseded by the Commissioner's order, the Revolver No. 17528 was said to have been sold for Rs. 5/ - to Sri R.K. Trivedi who was then the District Magistrate, the D.B.B. L. gun No. 532/502 was sold to Sri K.S. Pandey, Arms clerk for Rs. 20/ -, Rifle No. 1378 was sold to sri H.S. Tiwari, the Additional District Magistrate for Rs. 5/ - and the D.B.B.L. Gun No. 21/466 was sold to Sri R.P Srivastava, Treasury Officer for Rs. 10/ -. The Plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit on January 15, 1960 which has given rise to the present appeal.
(3.) THE trial court accepted the Plaintiffs' case that there was no valid order of forfeiture passed in the case and hence the Respondents were liable to return the arms to the Plaintiffs. It further held that the price paid for these arms were not reasonable. Accord ing to it the price of the goods should be assessed as under: Revolver Rs. 200/, D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 1000/ -, Rifle Rs, 200/ -and D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 800/ -. Thus according to the trial court the Plaintiffs were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2200/ -as price of the four arms in case they were not to be returned. The trial Court on the basis of its findings passed a decree directing the State Government as well as the four persons who were said to have purchased the arms to return the same and place them in the custody of the District Magistrate, Faizabad so that they may be sold or disposed of in accordance with law. in case the arms were not available, the trial court directed the State Government to satisfy the decree by paying Rs. 2200/ -.