In the absence of a privity of contract between the Government and the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had no legal right to recover the outstanding amount.

1. - This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated November 14, 1973 of the Civil Judge, Balotra, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit by allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan defendant No. 1 against the judgment dated 5th August, 1972 of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Barmer, who had decreed the suit.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the present appellants in the Court of Munsif, Barmer, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,616.98 p. against the State of Rajasthan and four others, namely,--(1) Provincial President, Bharat Sewak Samaj, Jaipur, (2) Shri Devi Shanker Tiwari, Former Provincial President, Bharat Sewak Samaj, (3) Shri Naval, Kishore Badgoti, Former Provincial Organisation Secretary, Bharat Sewak Samaj and (4) Shri Purushottam Das Kudal, Advocate, President, Provincial Bharat Sewak Samaj, Ajmer. The averments made in the plaint were that a Lok Karya Kshetra of the Bharat Sewak Samaj was established at Choutan on March 26, 1964. A sum of Rs. 4,116.98 was sanctioned by the Government for being used for the said Karya Kshetra, Chouhtan for the year 1966-67. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 2,5000/- only was received by the Bharat Sewak Samaj, Chouhtan, on different dates but a sum of Rs. l,616.98p. remained outstanding. Several times letters were written to the Government to make this payment, but no reply was received and the said amount remained with the Government as deposit for the Lok Karya Kshetra, Bharat Sewak Samaj, Chouhtan. The plaintiff No. 1 described himself as the convenor of the Lok Karya Kshetra, Chouhtan and plaintiff No. 2 as its Principal Assistant. A Notice under Section 80, CPC, was sent to the Government on January 22, 1971, but as no payment was made by the Government, the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs on March 23, 1971. It was prayed that a decree for Rs. l,616.98p. may be passed against the State of Rajasthan and in the alternative, if the said amount had been received by Shri Devi Shanker Tiwari, defendant No. 3 or Shri Nawal Kishore Bargoti, defendant No. 4, the decree for the said amount of Rs. 1,616.98p. may be passed against those defendants.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 filed their written statement and denied their liability to pay any amount and pleaded that they had no personal liability in the matter. They further submitted that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The suit was tried by the Additional Munsif, Barmer, who by the judgment, dated the 5th August, 1972, decreed the plaintiffs' suit against the State of Rajasthan defendant No. 1. The suit was however, dismissed against the defendants No. 2 to 5.

5. On appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, the Civil Judge, Balotra, by the judgment dated the 14th November, 1973 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif, Banner and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the conditions 1 to 6 of Ex. A/1 were not complied with and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive the said amount. It was further held that the amount was sanctioned as gratuitous act and it did not, therefore, create any legal right in the; plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they had a legal right to recover the amount and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal in this Court. Shri Singhvi, learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that defendant No. 2 failed to file a written statement and ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. He has further urged that it was established from the record that the amount of Rs. 4,116.98 was sanctioned by the Government for the Lok Karya Kshetra, Chouhtan. Out of this a sum of Rs. 2500/- only was paid and the plaintiffs were entitled to receive the remaining amount which was not paid. The Government Advocate, on the other hand, has s