( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Matte from the judgment and decree against it passed by the Additional District Judge. Indore, in favour of the heirs and dependants of one lala Ramchandra who was killed by a shot alleged to have been fired by the police while controlling a riot on the 21st July, 1954. The trial Court has decreed Rs. 5,000 out of a claim of about Rs. 1,00. 000, Rs 4,000 out of which is attributable to the accident having rendered fee Lala's car unsaleable to others and unusable by the owners, and Its. 1. 000 to fee loss of the said Lala's guidance to one of his grandsons (plaintiff No. 4 Satyapal) whom the former was guiding in the day-today conduct of a business in the sale of spare parts.

( 2 ) THE central question for decision is whether on the assumption that the police officers entrusted with the quelling of the riots had actually fired the shot that killed the Lala, it was not a sovereign function of the State which they were exercising for which even on the basis of a tort there was no legal liability to pay damage? or compensation. The case law on this point is clear and fairly extensive and will be set out. Secondly, if the present case has features which distinguish it from those in which the majority in the Federal Court. AIR 1944 FC 41. Maharani gurucharan Kaur of Nabha v. State of Madras, and the Supreme Court, AIR 1962 sc 93s. State of Rajas than v Mst Vulhvawati; and AIR 1965 SC 1039, Kasturi Lal ralia Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, have held that in our country even if the government or its delegates commit tort while exercising their sovereign functions the victim has no legal remedy. Thirdly, even if the Government is liable in the special circumstances of the case, whether me quantum granted is really fair and proper, especially in regard to the car in which only one bullet hole had been made and which did not in any material manner affect its material value and utility, or whether its becoming unusable for sentimental reasons and associations could be a factor to be taken into account. Finally if the plaintiffs were to be compensated by a decree for cost of the car whether the vehicle itself should have been given to them.

( 3 ) EXCEPT for certain details on which the State did not join issue the story is common ground There was what was called a "students agitation" at Indore in 1954 which took the grave turn of general lawlessness and damage to public and private property sometime on the forenoon of the 21st July. 1964. The centre of the disturbances' was the locality in front off the Secretariat as it used to be. the old High Court building--both on the same side of the main road--and on the other, the M. T. Hospital. The topographical picture can be conveniently completed by noting that immediately to the south of this locality there it an over bridge over the railway and about 200 to 300 yards beyond a road circle in front of the Regal cinema Theatre where the ground level road from the Samyogitaganj locality joins the main road. Four to five hundred yards further south is the house of one Saigal which is mentioned by the plaintiffs as being more or less in front of their own house. Anyway, the stand of the plaintiffs is on the statement of the District magistrate who ordered the firing and wanted it to be confined to the side of the old Secretarial and the old High Court side of the bridge and not to be on the side of the Regal Theatre The firing had. stopped, officially at any rate, on the orders of the District Magistrate at about 12-56. ( 4 ) IN the meantime Lala Ramchandra--an old trader with a business in the siyaganj locality was coming home in his car. The plaintiffs are his heirs. No 1 being his widow, Nos. 2 and 3 his sons and No. 4 his grandson--being the son of no. 2 The Lala was on that morning actually at his shop and when he heard of the disturbance on the Tukogan Road only a few hundred yards from the Siyaganj he asked the grandson to close the shop and come home