ORDER

Seth, J. - The suit giving rise to this application in revision was instituted by the plaintiffs applicants against the Government of United Provinces for the recovery of certain ornaments, and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 599.4/- of their price.

2. These ornaments were stolen from the house of the plaintiffs. They were recovered from another house, on a search made by the police and seized as stolen property, in exercise of powers conferred in that behalf by the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were produced as exhibits at the trial of those, who were prosecuted in connection with the theft. They were accordingly kept in the Collectorate Malkhana, from where they were again stolen, and are now untraceable. The plaintiffs applied unsuccessfully to the Magistrate for an order for their restoration to them and then instituted the present suit, which was dismissed on the finding that the Government was not liable to compensate the plaintiffs.

3. It appears that the claim for the return of the ornaments was not pressed before the Court below, as indeed it could not be pressed for want of any cause of action, disclosed in the plaint. After reciting the facts mentioned above, except the theft at the Malkhana, the plaint went on to allege that the plaintiffs have learnt that the ornaments are not available at the Malkhana, on account of the negligence of the defendant's servants, and that they have not been returned inspite of notice and ended with prayer for the aforesaid alternative reliefs.

4. These allegations do not disclose any cause of action for the return of the ornaments. There is no averment of any wrongful detention, but on the contrary there is the suggestion that the ornaments are not in the possession of the defendant. Indeed, it was an admitted fact during the trial that the ornaments were stolen from the Malkhana and were untraceable. The plaintiffs, therefore, pressed the alternative relief only, for the recovery of their price on the ground that the ornaments were lost on account of the negligence of the Government servants, and the Government was liable foe their tortuous conduct. As already stated, this plea was overruled and the suit dismissed.

5. The decree of the Court below has been assailed on two grounds in this revision. The first ground of attack is, that the position of the Government was that of a bailee and it was liable to indemnify the plaintiffs, if the ornaments were lost through its negligence or through the negligence of its servants. The second ground of attack is that the Government is liable to indemnify the plaintiffs in accordance with the rule that a master is liable for the tortious acts of his servants.

6. The first ground is manifestly untenable and does not deserve any serious consideration, for the obligation of a bailee is contractual obligation and springs only from the contract of bailment. It cannot arise independently of a contract. In this case, the ornaments were not made over to the Government under any contract whatsoever; in fact the ornaments were not at all handed over by the plaintiffs to the Government. The Government, therefore, never occupied the position of a bailee and is not liable as such to indemnify the plaintiffs. It was perhaps realised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-applicants that this ground could not be supported and the arguments, before me, were, therefore, confined to the second ground only, which does raise a substantial question of law.

7. According to political theory, sovereignty is an essential attribute of a State, which means that it is the supreme and ultimate authority within its territory, and that there is no other authority, to which its citizens may look for redress, if they have any grievance against it. The Courts of law derive their existence, jurisdiction and authority from the State itself; and have, therefore, no jurisdiction over it and no authority to pronounce any binding adjudication against it, except in so