SAT NARAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal from the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing their suit in which they had claimed Rs. 60,000/-from the Dominion of India, the defendant. The facts giving rise to the suit are that the plaintiffs are owners of a three storeyed building in Delhi, covering an area of about 30 bighas. The Government of India, acting under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, requisitioned that building on 6th of June, 1944, and required the owners to deliver possession on 16th of June, 1944, to the Estate Officer, Central Public Werks Department The formal possession was taken on 20th of June, 1944. After the Government took over the possession of the premises it required the owners to make arrangement for water supply, drainage and some other amenities. On 31st of May, 1945, an overseer of the Estate Officer furnished to the owners the details of the requirements. The owners plead that they spent about Rs. 10.000/-in order to provide the amenities required of them. On 11th June, 1945, a release order was passed in respect of this building and on 20th June, 1945, the plaintiffs were informed of the decision of the Government of India to release the house which had been requisitioned. The plaintiffs have claimed compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-on account of their having been deprived of the use of the building etc. for the period during which the property remained under requisition, which is about one year. A sum of Rs. 10,000/-was claimed on account of the amenities provided at the Government's request. Thus, in all, a suit for the recovery of Rs. 60,000/-was filed on 23rd of August, 1948, after giving two months' statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In the written statement the defendant's contention was that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules and that compensation could be settled only under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act by negotiations failing which reference was to be made to arbitration. It was, therefore, contended that the suit was barred in view of the above provisions. It was also pleaded that this suit had been filed beyond the period of limitation. It was next pleaded that the owners of the building had undertaken that they would forgo compensation for the period the house remained under requisition if the premises were released in their favour and the house was released on that specific condition and undertaking. It was, therefore, said that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming any compensation.

(3.) The above pleas gave rise to the following issues: (1) Is the suit barred by time? (2) Is the suit barred under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act read with Act II of 1948? (3) Are the plaintiffs estopped from claiming any compensation? (4) Relief. The first and the third issues were answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative. In consequence of the above findings, the suit was dismissed.