DEO PRAYAG SINGH Vs. UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from the judgment and decree of Sri Jagmohan Lal, Civil Judge,. Gorakhpur dated the 4th of April, 1952. By that judgment the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed upon the ground that it was barred by Section 233(m) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The question of the bar of section 233(m) has been disposed of as a preliminary issue.

(2.) Before we deal with the contentions advanced before us it is necessary to refer to the plaint The plaint alleged that the plaintiff was a Zamindar and an Advocate but his activities were confined to looking after his zamindari only, that there was one Sri Kishan Saran Chand, father of Sri Bhagwat Chand, that the former took a contract of the Gorakhpur Birdghat ferry from the P. W. D., Gorakhpur for a period of three years beginning from the 15th of April, 1948 to the 14th of April, 1951, that the lease amount of the said contract was Rs. 2,45,555/-, that Sri Kishan Saran' Chand died and his son, Sri Bhagwat Chand, succeeded and carried on the contract taken by his father, that due to various causes Sri Bhagwat Chand suffered a heavy loss in the running of the ferry and he could not pay the dues of the P. W. D. relating to the contract regularly, that, therefore, the District Magistrate took possession of the ferry from the said Sri Bhagwat Chand in the month of January, 1951 i.e. before the expiry of the leased term, that Sri Bhagwat Chand was related to the plaintiff and he went to the plaintiff for legal advice and help and also requested the plaintiff to move the P. W. D. authorities, Gorakhpur, for remission in the contract money as there had been a loss owing to unforeseen circumstances, that the P. W. D. authorities were asserting that a sum of Rs. l,08,616/9/- was due from Sri Bhagwat Chand and had attached his property, that the plaintiff under the said Sri Bhagwat Chand's instructions made an application to the P. W. D, authorities including the Superintending Engineer representing Bhagwat Chand's case and prayed on his behalf for a substantial remission, but the plaintiff's endeavours did not succeed, that, the Tahsildar of Sadar Tahsil, Gorakhpur without any ground or reason, called upon the plaintiff to pay the entire dues owing by Sri Bhagwat Chand to the P. W. D., that the action of the Tahsildar in calling upon the plaintiff and asking him to pay the dues, for which he was not at all liable, was not only ultra vires but was also mala fide and illegal, that the plaintiff was never a lessee of the ferry in question and had nothing to do with it, that the process chosen by the Tahsildar, as an agent of the defendant for realising the aforesaid dues was also unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the Tahsildar had no business to call the plaintiff and to threaten him with taking steps for realisation of the aforesaid amount absolutely in violation of law, that the plaintiff came to know that the P. W. D. authorities were annoyed with the plaintiff as he had represented the case of Sri Bhagwat Chand to the Superintending Engineer of the P. W. D. and as he had pointed out many irregularities committed by the said Department, that as the P. W. D, failed to realise the dues from Sri Bhagwat Chand, hence the local P, W. D. in collusion with Sri Bhagwat Chand wanted to treat the plaintiff as lessee and illegally realise 'the dues from the plaintiff, that so far as the plaintiff had been able to ascertain, the total dues of the P. W. D. on the date of the suit after deducting the security money paid in connection with the contract would not exceed Rs. 78,000/- and the claim made by the Tahsildar was, in any case, highly excessive and exaggerated, that the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C, to the defendant on the 5th of May, 1951 but no reply was given, that the cause of action for the suit had arisen on the 3rd of May, 1951 when the Tahsildar of the Sadar Tahsil demanded Rs. 1,08,616/9/- from the plaintiff treating the latter as a contractor of the Birdghat ferry in Gorakhpur and on the 6th of July, 1951, the date of expiry of the notice.

(3.) The plaintiff prayed for a permanent injunction in his favour against the defendant restraining the latter from realising the P. W. D. dues of the Gorakhpur Birdghat ferry standing in the name of Sri Bhagwat Chand contractor for the period from the 15th of April, 1948 to the 14th of April, 1951.