SONI BAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated the 14th September, 1959 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur in a suit for recovery of goods or failing which money against the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) MST. Soni, a widow, reported to the police that some valuable articles of gold, silver, etc. were stolen from her house. Tansukh Das and Megraj were prosecuted for this theft but were eventually acquitted on 28th February, 1942. On appeal against this acquittal the Chief Court of Jodhpur convicted both the accused persons under sec. 411 of the Marwar Penal Code and directed that the articles recovered from them be delivered to MST. Soni, the plaintiff. A further appeal was taken to his Highness the Maharaja of Jodhpur against the judgment of the Chief Court and the only benefit Tansukhdas and Megraj obtained thereby was that the sentence of fine imposed on them was reduced. Thereafter these two persons Tansukhdas and Megraj instituted a declaratory suit against MST. Soni in the Court of the Judicial Superintendent, Phalodi claiming the articles said to be stolen and recovered from them as their own. They included a number of gold and silver ornaments besides clothes and silver utensils. During the pendency of the suit these articles were obtained from the Magistrate's Court for the purposes of being exhibited in the Civil Court and were ordered by the Civil Court to be kept in safe custody with the Treasury Officer, Jodhpur. The suit of Tansukhdas and Megraj having failed they preferred an appeal before the District Judge and the same was dismissed some time in November, 1950. , An appeal was brought to the High Court on 25th September, 1956. After the judgment of the High Court MST. Soni made an application to the District Magistrate and Collector, Jodhpur, for the return of the articles which were in the safe custody with the local treasury. The District Magistrate ordered that some of the articles which were available with the treasury may be returned through the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Phalodi and for the remainder (the details whereof are given in Schedule A annexed to the plaint) which were not traceable it was said that on their being traced they will be delivered to MST. Soni. This order is contained in Ex. 1. Thereafter MST. Soni served a notice under sec. 80 C. P. C. to the State and as it produced no result she instituted a suit praying that the articles mentioned in schdl. A annexed to the plaint may be returned to her and in the alternative a decree in the sum of Rs 8280/2/9 be passed against the State. The defendant, State of Rajas-than, resisted the suit. The position taken by the defendant was that law had imposed an obligation on servants of the State that they may take into possession property which was stolen and if something happened to the said property on account of their negligence the State is not answerable. It was also pleaded that Article 2 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply and the suit was barred by time. The Civil Judge, Jodhpur, decreed the plaintiff's claim and directed the defendant to return the articles mentioned in the Schedule A annexed to the plaint within three months from the date of the decree failing which to pay a sum of Rs. 8280/2/9 with costs to the plaintiff. It also awarded interest from the 30th December, 1958 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum if the defendant failed to return the articles. The State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal. The learned District Judge expressed the opinion that Article 2 governed the circumstances of this case and the suit was, therefore, barred by time and he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal.