STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOTIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the two separate judgments and decrees of the District Judge, Kotah, dated 31-5-69. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of together.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted two suits in the Court of the District Judge, Kotah, suit No. 22 of 1963 on 16-11-63 and suit No. 8 of 1964 on 31-1-64.

(3.) THE second ground relates to verbal assurances given by the engineers that the plaintiff will be paid at the enhanced rates. THE plaintiff in his statement has deposed that verbal assurances were given to him by the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. Both these officers appeared in the witness-box as DW 1 and DW 2. No question was put to DW 1 about the alleged assurance. DW 1 emphatically denied having given such an assurance to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff in his cross-examination pointed out the name of Mr. Notra as the person who assured him about the payment at enhanced rates, but Mr. Notra was not examined by the plaintiff. THE statement of the plaintiff is not at all convincing and I am not inclined to put implicit faith on his lone statement. I therefore hold that no verbal assurances as alleged by the plaintiff were given by the engineers. Assuming for a moment that the assurances as alleged by the plaintiff were in fact given by the Assist. Engineer & Executive Engineer, even then they are of no consequence. Both these officers were the agents of the government and they were deputed to look after the contract works. THEy had no authority to give assurance for payment at enhanced rates and this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. No estoppel can arise from the representation of the agent unless it is within his actual or ostensible authority to make it. THE second ground also fails.