HARYANA STATE Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by Babu Singh for recovery of Rs. 15,00.00 which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Gurgaon, vide his judgment and decree, dated November 15, 1978. However, on appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, vide his judgment and decree, dated March 23, 1979.

(2.) FACTS are that Babu Singh was granted lease for excavation of minor minerals from the quarry within the revenue estate of village Hariayhara by the Industries Department of the State of Haryana, on accepting highest bid of Rs. 2,000.00 given by the plaintiff. That lease was for the period from December 6, 1971 to March 31, 1973. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease, an amount of Rs. 500.00 was paid by Babu Singh as security and another sum of Rs. 500.00 as first quarterly instalment. An agreement Exhibit P8/d containing all the terms and conditions was executed in that behalf. Babu Singh paid second quarterly instalment of Rs. 500/after three months of the execution of the agreement Exhibit P8/d and in that way, a total sum of Rs. 1,500.00 was paid by him. Some persons from village Hariayhara initiated proceedings in the civil court challenging the right of the defen dants to create such a lease in favour of Babu Singh. Babu Singh was also arrayed as defendant in that suit. The said suit was decreed by the Senior Subordinate Judge vide his judgment, dated June 10, 1974 (Exhibit P7) holding that the defendants had no right to grant issue in respect of the land in question, as no right ever vested in defendants 1 and 2. The judgment and decree of the Court of Senior Subordinate judge were challenged in appeal, but that appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, dated February 21, 1976. It has been pleaded by Babu Singh plaintiff that he was not allowed to excavate minor minerals by the land owners of village Hariyahara and the possession thereof was not delivered to him by the defendants who had in fact, no right to create such lease on account of the findings returned by the civil court. It is alleged that defendant 1 and 2 failed to perform their part of the contract. Therefore, he had a right to claim the refund of Rs. 1,500/ -. On these averments, he claimed the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1500.00 and for is suance of an injunction restraining them from realising any amount from him. According to Babu Singh, he had given statutory notice Under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the defendants before institution of the suit. The suit filed by Babu Singh was contested by the defendants alleging that the plaintiff worked the quarry for more than five months under the lease granted by the Government in his favour, as admitted by him in his petition, dated August 10, 1975, addressed to the Home Minister, Haryana, and as such, he could not claim any refund of the amount paid by him. The defendants also took up the plea that he be non-suited on the ground of limitation and for improper valuation for the purpose of court-fee; and it was also alleged that no valid notice was served Under Section 80 of the Code before filing the suit.

(3.) THE finding was returned that in all eventuaties the claim of plaintiff must be defeated on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, this issue was decided against the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court on appeal were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff, as indicated carlrer, was decreed. 4. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal at the instance of the Stale of Haryana.