LAWS(J&K)-1974-12-3

SRI KANTH DHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 02, 1974
Sri Kanth Dhar Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff owned the premises known as Sri Niwas consisting of one Bungalow and ancillary land and structures at Baramulla. During the Tribal raids of -1947 he had to flee for safety to Srinagar and leave the premises unguarded. In his absence the Indian Army, which meanwhile arrived to resist the raiders occupied the building. Subsequently the Union of India entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff in respect of these premises for a period of three years effective retrospectively from 1 -4 -1948. On the expiry of the period of lease the Union of India did not vacate the premises despite demand. The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment and obtained possession on 11 -6 -1968. Thereafter he filed the present suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,590/ - on account of damages which, he alleges, were caused to the premises on account of the active negligence and misuse of the property by the Army. He has claimed damages under the following heads: Damages caused to the main house Rs. 28,400/ - Cost of material and damages caused on account of demolition of the kitchen and Servant Room Rs. 12,100/ - The loss caused by demolition of the compound wall and the removal of gate pillars of dressed stone etc. Rs. 7,000/ - Total Rs. 47,500/ - and added that but for these damages the property would have fetched him Rs. 1,50,000/ - against Rs. 81,000/ - only ,it which he sold it after getting possession from the defendant. In reply the Union of India admitted that the premises were taken on lease by them but denied that any damage was caused to them by the acts of omission or commission of its servants.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were raised by my learned brother Mian Jalal -ud -Din J. who originally tried the suit: -

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY the defendant amended the written statement with the permission of the court and raised an additional plea as regards limitation. Accordingly the following further issue was raised: Whether the suit is barred by limitation. O.P.D.