GAJJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected appeals by a plaintiff, which arise out of two connected suits Nos. 12/1 and 13/1 of 195.1, which were tried together and disposed of by the District Judge of Mahasu (Sri H. L. Soni) by means of one judgment. The appeals arise under the following circumstances:

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that he owned a hotel, named Grewal Hotel, as well as certain bungalows at Solan. On 1-8-1931, the Ruler of Baghat State (Solan) granted the plaintiff a bar, licence to sell liquor in the Grewal Hotel aforesaid on payment of Rs. 750/- per annum. Under the orders of the Ruler, the plaintiff spent sums on the entertainment of State guests and also made cash advances to the Ruler. On 13-10-1931, the Ruler granted the plaintiff the liquor contract for the whole of Baghat State with effect from 1st of Asoj 1988 S. and upto the end of 1990 S. in return for an annual payment of Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as earnest money on this account and the balance was to be paid by instalments. On 24-10-1931, the plaintiff made an advance! of Rs. 10.000/- to the Ruler, subject to the understanding that the advance would be recovered by, deducting a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from the instalments due from the plaintiff on account of the liquor contract. Further, interest at nine per cent per annum was payable on this sum. Over and above the advance of Rs. 10,000/-mentioned above, the plaintiff supplied various articles to the Ruler on credit, e. g. a motor-car, cement, construction material, foodstuffs, etc. At the request of the Ruler, the plaintiff executed various sundry jobs, e. g. construction of parapets, tennis courts, etc., and also spent considerable sums on entertaining State guests. The Ruler had agreed to pay interest at 9 % per annum on these sums and it was further agreed that the above sums, as well as the interest due thereupon, would be set off against amounts payable by the plaintiff to the State on account of land revenue, income tax, water and sanitation taxes, etc. The plaintiff claimed that, in this manner, a chain of mutual and reciprocal obligations was created between him and the Ruler, which was duly entered in the account-books. In other words, an open mutual and current account between the plaintiff, on one side, and the Ruler of Baghat State, on the other, came into existence on 2-9-1931. It was agreed between the parties that they should render accounts to each other and settle them finally. On such final settlement, the party, who was found to be in debit, was to make the necessary payment to the other side. Accounts were submitted by the plaintiff to the Ruler regularly. Their correctness was not disputed, but they were not finally settled. On 21-5-1948, i. e. after the merger of Baghat State into Himachal Pradesh, the Chief Executive Officer, Solan (Sri Karta Kishan) sent a letter to the plaintiff demanding a sum of Rs. 6,876/-(sic)9, as arrears of Government dues. In answer to that letter, the plaintiff sent a copy of his accounts and pointed out that, after allowing for all Government dues, a sum of Rs. 8,868/1/6 was due to him from the Baghat State, on the unsettled mutual current account. Since there was no proper response to his letter, the plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Commissioner as well as the Deputy Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh. The latter, without admitting or denying the correctness of the accounts, informed the plaintiff that it was open to him to file a civil suit for the recovery of his dues. The plaintiff then took up the matter with the Chief Commissioner and, eventually, got a reply from him dated 4-11-1948 to the effect that a sum of over Rs. 13,000/- was due from him and, if he considered that anything was due to him from the State, he could file a civil suit. Meanwhile, on 21-10-1948, a warrant of attachment under Section 72, Punjab Land Revenue Act, was issued by the Collector of Mahasu district and, in pursuance thereof, four houses belonging to the plaintiff and situated at Solan, namely, Karol View, Grewal House, Grewal Cottage and Ranbir Villa, were attached. The plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 13,000/-demanded from him under protest and objected to the attachment as illegal and ultra vires. Instead of releasing the property from attachment, the Collector recovered a further sum of Rs. 1,681/5/3, similarly although nothing was due from him. Thus, taking into account the sums of Rs. 13,000/-and Rs. 1,681/5/3 recovered from him by coercive process, the plaintiff alleged that a total sum of Rs. 20,208/11/9 was due to him. At the same, time, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to accept any amount that might be found due to him, after going through all the accounts. As far as the attachment of his houses was concerned, the plaintiff contended that the attachment was wrongful, resulting in wrongful loss to him, to the tune of Rs. 18,000/-.

(3.) On these facts, the plaintiff instituted two suits against the Union of India, the State of Himachal Pradesh and His Highness the Raja Sahib of Solan. In suit No. 12/1 of 1951, the relief claimed by the plaintiff was a decree for Rs. 14,000/consisting of (a) Rs. 12,000/-, representing loss caused to him by the wrongful attachment of his houses and (b) Rs. 2,000/-as damages for mental worry and loss of health due to wrongful attachment; total Rs. 14,000/-.