rp2

Publish in

Documents

7 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
evidence
Tags
Transcript
  ¬†MANU/SC/0278/1985 Equivalent Citation : AIR 1985 SC 998 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 2216(N) of 1970 Decided On: 09.05.1985 Appellants: Hirachand Kothari (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: A.N. Sen and V. Khalid, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. K. Jain, Adv For Respondents/Defendant: Maya Rao (Not Present), Adv. Subject: Property  Subject: Law of Evidence Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 86; Indian Evidence Act - Section 18, Indian Evidence Act - Section 20 Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated March 18, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 10 of 1960-- Disposition: Appeal Partly Allowed Citing Reference: Discussed 4 Case Note: Evidence Act - Section 20--Admission--D appointed to ascertain value of disputed land by mutual consent of appellant and Dy. Minister--Held, D's report cannot be treated as admission Under Section 20.  The testimony of Shah Alimuddin, Deputy Minister for Local Self Government clearly shows that he gave a hearing to the appellant and had deputed D.N. Gupta, Town Planning Officer to assess the valuation of the disputed land but he did not make any commitment on behalf of the State Government that whatever assessment was made by him would be binding on the Government. The report of D.N. Gupta dated February 21, 1956 making an appraisement or valuation at Rs. 35,826.50p. could not be treated as an admission Under Section 20 of the Evidence Act on the basis of which the plaintiff's claim for damages had to be decreed. (b) Damages - Interest--Claim of--Suit for damages--Appellant deprived of property--Held, he is entitled to interest at reasonable rate on amount due. The plaintiff having been deprived of the property was entitled to a reasonable rate of interest on the amount found to be due to him. Appeal partly allowed with costs JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal on certificate raises two questions, namely (1) Whether the parties by mutual consent had agreed to appoint D.N. Gupta, Superintending Engineer and Town Planning Officer, Jaipur to ascertain the value of the disputed land as an appraiser or valuer and therefore the appraisement or valuation thereof by him in his Report (Exh. 5) dated February 21, 1956 at Rs. 35,826.50 p. should be treated as an admission under Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872, on the basis of which the plaintiff's claim for damages had to be decreed, and (2) Whether the plaintiff being deprived of property was, on general principles, entitled to payment of interest on the amount payable to him as the value of the property taken by the State Government. 2. The facts bearing on the questions are briefly stated. In accordance with the terms of the registered deed of exchange executed by the parties on July 16, 1951, the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 120/50 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City where under the State Government agreed to give in exchange plot No. 0/17 located in Scheme on resumption of his plot bearing No. C/91 in the same scheme and handed over possession to the State Government of the aforesaid plot No. C/91, but the State Government on their part did not give possession of the exchanged plot to him, in consequence whereof the appellant instituted a suit for possession of the exchanged plot and for mesne profits thereof against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 270/51 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The State  Government in their written statement pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable since the plot which was to be given in exchange to the appellant did not belong to them, but did not disclose as to whom the said plot belonged. The appellant therefore served interrogatories on the State Government. In reply to the said interrogatories it was revealed in the affidavit filed by the State Government that the exchanged plot had been transferred to Thakur Harisingh of Achrol under the orders of the Home Minister, Government of India dated January 8, 1945 and that plot No. C/91 which belonged to the appellant was then in possession of the Raj Pramukh Maharaja Mansinghji of Jaipur. The appellant accordingly impleaded Thakur Harising of Achrol as a defendant in the suit and sought permission from the Central Government under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to join Maharaja Mansingji of Jaipur as a party to the suit. Thakur Harisingh of Achorol being impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed his written statement and raised an objection that the valuation of the land in dispute was Rs. 40,000 and the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That objection of his was sustained and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated October 15, 1955 returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 3. It transpires that the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India addressed a letter dated January 3, 1956 to the late Shri Mohan Lai Sukhadia, the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan conveying that it was felt that the appellant had a case and should be given the exchanged plot and if that was not feasible, he should be restored to his srcinal position and therefore could claim back possession of plot No. C/91. At the instance of the Chief Minister, for Local Self Government gave a hearing to the plaintiff on January 12, 1956 in the presence of the Secretary, Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur. On February 3, 1956, the Chief Minister addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, conveying the anxiety of the State Government to settle the claim of the, appellant and intimated that the appellant had agreed to the appointment of D N. Gupta, Town Planning Officer as the assessor who had been asked to assess the value of the land and submit his report by February 20, 1956. He therefore requested he Government of India to defer its decision in fairness to the State Government for a couple of months as it was felt that it might be possible to settle the matter without any unreasonable delay. 4. The aforesaid assessor D.N. Gupta by his report (Exh. 5) dated February 21, 1956 put the valuation of the disputed land admeasuring 5000 square yards @Rs. 7 per square yard amounting to Rs. 35,000 and to this he added Rs. 826.50p. as the cost of construction of a boundary wall i.e. Rs. 35,826,50p. in all. There ensued a correspondence between the State Government and the appellant as regards the payment of compensation. It was felt by the State Government that the assessor had wrongly taken into consideration parta rates of the Municipal Committee, Jaipur which could not form any legal basis for assessing the value of the disputed land which admittedly was situate outside the walled city of Jaipur, nor could he have taken into consideration the rates for the sale of plots of commercial site at a distance from the disputed land. The State Government accordingly declined to pay Rs. 35,826.50p. 5. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on February 4, 1957, as plaintiff, for recovery of Rs. 47,741.50p. i.e. Rs. 35,826.51p. as value of the disputed land in 1951 and Rs.

Previous Document

REALITY CHECK

Next Document

kelompok 8

Related Documents
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks