The State is liable for the acts of its servants in the course of their employment, even if those acts are wrongful, unless the acts are referable to or ultimately based on the delegation of sovereign or governmental powers of the State.

JUDGMENT:- This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 30-7-87 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the plaintiff respondents suit for recovery of Rupees 21,433.50 paise was decreed against the defendants-appellants.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 21,433.50 p. from the defendants, the State of Maghalaya and its officers, on the allegations that the plaintiff was an approved dealer in " non-levy" cement and other building materials and had been carrying on business at Shillongpatty, Silchar. The plaintiff through her husband had on 30-6-85 purchased 500 bags of non-levy cement from the defendant No.9 at Gauhati on cash payment of Rs.43,500/- which included Rs. 1500/- as lorry freight advance for despatch through the defendant No.8. The plaintiffs husband after- tile transaction had left Gauhati on getting assurance from the defendant, Nos. 8 and 9 that said 500 bags of cement would be delivered at the plaintiffs premises by truck to be arranged by the carrier defendant No.8. After waiting for some time on 6-7-85 information was received that the defendants 6 and 7 had illegally and arbitrarily detained the two trucks carrying the plaintiffs 500 bags of non-levy cement from Gauhati to Silchar via Meghalaya State at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate. The plaintiff stated that after some personal effort by the plaintiffs husband, on 11-7-85 Truck bearing registration No MLK 499 arrived at Silchar with 200 bags of cement and at the time of taking delivery, it was found that 55 bags of cement had been totally clotted and had become stone. The other truck bearing registration No. NLN 3635 reached Silchar on 12-7-85 and delivered 200 bags of cement at the plaintiffs business premises, out of which four bags had become totally clotted and had become stone. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were liable for the damage and loss caused to the plaintiffs goods.

3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 filed a joint written statement and pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The allegations in the plaint were denied. The defendants further plea was that the State of Meghalaya the defendant No.1 was not liable for damages. The defendants 8 and 9 also denied liability for damages.

4. The learned trial court had framed the following issues :

1. Is there any cause of action?

2. Is the suit maintainable?

3. Does this court have any jurisdiction to try the suit?

4. Is the suit bad for waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

5. The learned trial court held that the plaintiff had cause of action, that the suit was maintainable, that the court had jurisdiction, that the suit was not bad for waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, that the plaintiff was entitled to reliefs. The suit was accordingly decreed against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7.

6. Aggrieved, the defendants 1 to 7 have come in appeal, and Sri A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, has submitted that the court at Silchar had no jurisdiction, and that the State of Meghalaya was not liable for damage. On tile other hand, Sri B. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff has supported the finding of the trial court and refuted the submissions the on behalf of the appellants.

7. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the evidence on record.

8. The points which arise for consideration are firstly that whether the court at Silchar had jurisdiction to try the suit, and secondly that whether the State of Meghalaya was liable for the acts of its servants.

9. In so far as the first point is concerned, Sri A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya, has argued that the cause of action for the suit had arisen at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate within the State of Meghalaya and accordingly the territorial jurisdiction for the suit was with the courts in Meghalaya and that the