Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Bishambhar Dayal, C. J. , Shiv Dayal and A. P. Sen, JJ.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
DEVILAL SHIVLAL PALLIWAL - Respondents
First Appeal 109 Of 1957
Decided On : 12/04/1969
By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decisions is binding on all Courts in India. [Para 20
(2) Tort- vicarious liability of the State Government for acts done by public servants-acts based on delegation of sovereign powers of the State-no action lies against the State Government for damages-action against
State Government when lies.
The following dicta can be deduced from the Supreme Court decisions :-(1) Where a tortious act is committed by a public servant in discharge of his statutory functions, which are referable to, and ultimately based on, the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State to such public servant, an action for damages for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie. (2) If a tortious act has been committed by a public servant in discharge of duties assigned to him, not by virtue of delegation of any sovereign power, an action for damages will lie. (3) Where, due to negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the State a claim for damages is made, the State is not immune because the use of the vehicle is not in exercise of any sovereign function. (4) Where the State has engaged it self in activities like industry, public transport or State trading and exercises powers as employers in public section, the State is not immuned from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such. (5) Where the relationship of bailor and bailee between the plaintiff- and the State comes into being and the question of tortious liability does not arise, the first two propositions will not apply and the State will be liable, if its liability under the ordinary law of bailment is made out. (6) The relationship of bailor and bailee may come into existence, even when there is no express contract between the plaintiff on the one hand and the State or its servant in the discharge of his official function on the other. 1962 JLJ-SN 306=
(1962) Supp. (2) SCR 989, (1965) 1 SCR 375 & 1965 JLJ 243 relied on. (1967) 2 SCR 170 & AIR 1967 SC 1884 distinguished. 1961 JLJ 601 confirmed. [Para 21
(3) Practice (Civil)-suit for value of goods seized -the plaintiff should prove that he is entitled to the return of the goods.
The plaintiff's suit is for value of the goods seized by revenue authorities from his possession. He has not claimed the relief of return of his goods, and for the value of the goods in the alternative, which is ordinarily done. But, that apart, in either case, the plaintiff can succeed only if he has established that he is entitled to the return of his goods. [Para 23
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05,000/-as value of wood which belonged to the plaintiff and was seized by' Revenue Officers in exercise of powers under Section 202, of the C. P. Land Revenue Act, 1917.
( 2 ) SHIVLAL (whose legal representatives are respondents Devilal and Smt. Godavaribai) brought the suit against the State on the allegation that he was a malguzar Lambardar of village Jamalpani, Settlement No. 154, Patwari Circle No. 24, Tahsil Sausar, district Chhindwara. He did cutting of trees in some portion of his malguzari jungle at Jamalpani in the year 1949-50. The cut teak wood and fire wood were lying in the jungle and outside it. The plaintiff did the cutting work in the forest from September 18, 1949 to October 19, 1950. The plaintiff completely observed the rules framed for cutting jungles, but under the impression that the provisions of Section 202 of the Land Revenue Act had not been observed, the state started proceedings against the plaintiff through its officials. (Revenue Case no. 37/v-4 of 1949-50 ). Shri Das Sharma, Naib Tahsildar, seized the plaintiff's cut wood through the Revenue Inspector on October 22, 1950. The property seized was entrusted to Shakharam (defendant 2), a resident of Jamalpani, Eventually, this revenue case was filed on December 22, 1952. "but the plaintiff did not get back his seized goods. The order for selling the seized goods y auction was also passed on 22-12-52",
( 3 ) IT was further alleged in the amended Elaint that revenue proceedings were started y the officers for complicating the plaintiff's claim as far as possible. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal was allowed and the order dated March 22, 1954, passed by Shri Konher, and the order of the deputy Commissioner dated February 12, 1954, were set aside by the Board of revenue, by its decision dated September 28, 1955. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rupees 2,05,000/ -. He estimated the value of his wood at Rs. 2,28,744/ -.
( 4 ) THE State (defendant No. 1) resisted the suit contending that the act of cutting the trees was illegal. It was denied that the defendant-State. ever got seized the timber and wood, cut by the plaintiff. But it was admitted that, in his capacity as a revenue Officer, the Tahsildar ordered the seizure of the cut timber and wood and that the Revenue Inspector seized the same on October 20,*t950 under a seizure memo. The value of the wood as alleged by the plaintiff was denied. It was admitted that the seized property was entrusted to the second defendant as supratdar.
( 5 ) THE second defendant admitted the plaintiffs allegation that the seized property was entrusted to him as Suprutdar, but resisted the suit on the ground that he is a gond by caste; that he is illiterate and a rustic; that he was in the employ of the plaintiff and was getting three Khandis of grain from each crop plus Rs. 30/- in cash as annual remuneration; that it was at the desire of the plaintiff that he accepted ea-trustment of goods; that the plaintiff approached him in the month of phagun or Chait (February or March) of the year 1951 and represented to him that the case against the plaintiff had been dismissed and the seized property had been released so that he could take the seized property to his house at Mohgaon; and that practising this deception on him, the plaintiff took away the seized property to his house at Mohgaon.
( 6 ) THE Trial Court held that part of the wood had been removed by the plaintiff; that on June 8, 1954, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sausar, passed an order for auction of the seized property; that the seizure of the goods was not in exercise of the sovereign functions of the State; that 5779 logs of wood had been seized; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs, 55011/- from the defendant-State. The rest of the claim was dismissed. The second defendant was held not liable and the suit was
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
