STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GANGADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the courts below having allowed the claim of plaintiff Gangadhar for the recovery of Rs. 2,390/1/-, with costs, against the State of Rajasthan, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) ONE Zorawarmal was found to have been murdered in his house in Churu, in the former Bikaner State, during the night between December 13 and December 14, 1948. He had no issue and used to live alone in his house. The police sealed all his property. Subsequently, the police reached the conclusion that Zorawarmal had died heirless and that his property bad escheated to the Slate. They therefore prepared a detailed inventory (Ex. 2) on the 23rd 24th and 25th January. 1949, in the presence of 'motvirs', making it quite clear that the property bad been seized because of escheat. It consisted of a large number of articles including jewellery and utensils. All these were placed in four rooms of Zorawarmal's house which were locked and sealed. The keys of the locks were placed in the 'malkhana' of the police station The concerned Sub-Inspector of Police then submitted his report Ex. A. 2 on March 1, 1949, to the Tahsildar of Churu requesting him to take over the escheated property and to lake further necessary proceedings. Rival claimants approached the Tehsildar with their competing claims for zorawarmal's properly and the Tahsildar directed them to have them adjudged by a civil court. In the meantime, he allowed the property to remain in police custody. Ultimately, the Civil Judge of Churu, who tried the suit regarding the claims of zorawarmal's heirs held on March, 27, 1952 that Gangadhar the present plaintiff was entitled to inherit Zorawarmal's property. That judgment was upheld by this court on November 1, 1954. Armed with the Court's decree, Gangadhar approached the Collector of Churu for the delivery of the property to him. The collector made an order on March 16, 1955, directing the police to deliver the property to Gangadhar. It was accordingly handed over to him, except for some gold and silver ornaments and utensils. The plaintiff made various applications for the return of these remaining articles also, hut without success. According to him the articles were of the value of Rs. 2,396/9/- and adding Rs. 2/8/-on account of incidental expenses, he instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,399/1/-on November 19. 1955, against the Rajasthan State. All these facts are not in dispute and were admitted in the defendant's written statement. It was however pleaded in defence that the article were not worth Rs. 2396/9/- and that the defendant was not liable because they had been stolen in spite of all care and attention.

(3.) THE Civil Judge of Churu, who tried the suit, held that the value of the articles was rightly claimed by the plaintiff to be Rupees 2,396/9/-and that they were not stolen. He therefore decreed the suit on February 5, 1958 repelling the contention that the Stale was not vicariously liable in tort. The Stale preferred its first appeal to the District Judge of Bikaner, who upheld the findings of fact of the trial court. He took the view that the State was liable because the property had been entrusted to it as also in tort.