Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution,
(2.) THE petitioner, Shri Abani Kumar Mukherji, was recognised as the successor of late Shri Babu Satkori Mukherji by an order of the Raj Pramukh dated the 21st of Feb. , 1951. THE order of recognition imposed a liability to pay Rs. 9605/0/6 by way of dues chargeable on the succession. THE petitioner was to pay this amount by six half-yearly instalments THE petitioner paid Rs 1605/8/3 on 29th January, 1952, and Rs. 1600/- on 2nd June, 1952. He was called upon by an order of the Collector, dated 2nd June, 1952, to deposit 6-1/4% on account of batta (exchange ratio between jharshahi and kaldar coins) over and above the aforesaid amounts as the liability imposed was said to be in jharshahi coin. It was alleged by the petitioner that the Collector, who is respondent No. 2, issued orders to realise the amount of batta on the above amounts as also on all future instalments by means of a penalty of Rs. 5/- per day, known as dastak. It was alleged that the order imposing a liability did not mention that batta of 6-1/4% was realisable in addition to the sum named in the order. It was also alleged that jharshahi rupee coin had ceased to be legal tender and the respondent had no jurisdiction to realise the excess sum beyond the amount named in the order which the petitioner was prepared to pay in the Govern-ment of India Rupee which was the legal tender. The Indian Coinage Act of 1906 was extended to Rajasthan by Part 'b' States Laws Act 1951 (Act No. 3 of 1951) which came into force on 1st April, 1951. The liability in the present case was imposed prior to the enforcement of the Indian Coinage Act in terms of jharshahi rupees. Although it is not so mentioned in the order, the affidavit of the respondent is clear and the fact is not challenged by the petitioner. When and how the jharshahi rupees came to be introduced is a matter of history. They were made of silver and became scarce on rise of the price of silver and the Government of Jaipur State by order dated !5th March, 1941, published in the Jaipur Gazette of 1st April, 1941, permitted payments to be made in the Government of India coin by payment of 17 annas of the Government of India coin for every jharshahi rupee. The liability when it was imposed at the time was thus in jharshahi coin, and all Government dues were calculated and paid in jharshahi rupees and one anna per rupee was to be paid for converting the liability in jharshahi rupees to the liability in Government of India coins. Sec. 6 of the Part 'b' States Laws Act while repealing all earlier laws on the subject preserved the liability which had been incurred under the previous laws. For that reason even after the enforcement of the Indian Coinage Act the liability of the petitioner continued to remain for the sum named in the order plus 6 1/4% when calculated in the Indian coins. Learned counsel argued that whatever may have been the liability at its inception the Indian coin was a legal tender and, therefore, the petitioner should be deemed to have made full deposit when the entire amount named in the order had been paid in the Indian coin. In the matter of conversion of one kind of coin to another the rate of exchange at which conversion can be made is one prevailing on the date of the imposition of the liability. The principle has been settled in D. I. Ferdinando v$. Simon, Smits & Company Limited (l) and in S. S. Celia vs. S. S. Volturno (2 ). The fact that the Indian coin is now a legal tender only means that the creditor cannot refuse to receive the amount if paid in Indian coins. There is no allegation that any tender made in Indian coin was refused. The only point in dispute is the amount of liability and as stated above it is to be determined according to the exchange rate at the time at which it was imposed. The Collector, Jaipur, was quite right in asking the petitioner to deposit 6 l/4%over and above the amount deposited by him, which was the exchange rate prevalent at the time when the liability was imposed. It was contended that in any case the Collector had no power to issue a dastak under any law. It is not necessary to decide this question as the respondents have denied on affidavit that any dastak was issued. This petition has no force and is dismissed. - I agree with Bapana J. that this application has no force and should be dismissed. The main question for determination in this case relates to the exchange ratio between jharshahi and the Government of India currency rupee. Before the 1st of April 1951. when the Indian Coinage Act of 1906 was extended to Rajasthan by part 'b' State Laws Act. 1951 (Act No. 3 of 1951) jharshahi currency was legal tender in the area of the former State. The order of the Rajpramukh regarding recognition of the succession of the petitioner to late Babu Satkori Mkherji of the 21st of February, 1951, which fixes the liability of the petitioner at Rs. 9605/3/6 should, therefore, be construed to specify the amount in terms of jharshahi currency. The liability thus imposed had to be discharged by 6 monthly instalments of Rs. 600/- each. The petitioner had already paid two such instalments. But the authorities claimed batta at the rate of one anna per rupee over the amounts paid by him in Indian currency, as before the 1st of April, 1951, the exchange ratio between the jharshahi currency and the Indian currency was one jharshahi rupee equal to 17 annas of Indian rupee. Under sec. 24 of the Indian Coinage Act of 1906 jharshahi currency remained legal tender up to the 31st of March, 1953, by virtue of Government of India Notification No. F. l (26)'fi/50, dated the 5th September, 1951. While jharshahi currency was legal tender in the area of the former Jaipur State it continued subject to the same conditions as immediately before the commencement of the Indian Coinage Act of 1906. By the Jaipur Government Notification published in the Jaipur Gazette of the 1st of April, 1941, the exchange ratio between jharshahi currency and the Indian currency was fixed at one jharshahi rupee equal to 17 annas of the Indian rupee. The same ratio continued up to the time jharshahi currency was abolished. As a matter of fact, jhgrshahi currency became scarce much before its abolition on account of rise in the price of silver to the extent that the silver content of jharshahi rupee became more in value than its face value. However, the Government was prepared to accept jharshahi currency at the rate fixed by the notification of the 1st of April, 1951, upto the time jharshahi currency was abolished. The petitioner has come to this court in respect of the amount of batta claimed by the Collector of Jaipur in respect of two instalments paid by him before the 1st of still legal tender. At that time the rate of exchange fixed by the then Jaipur State continued and the jharshahi currency was convertible in to Indian currency at the rate of 17 annas of Indian rupee for one jharshahi rupee. The Collector was, therefore, right in demanding batta from the petitioner and the case of the petitioner that the Collector should have accepted Indian currency at par with jharshahi currency has no force. The question might, however, crop in future regarding the instalments that would fall due after the 31st of March, 1933. Bapna J. holds that liability of the petitioner in jharshahi can be converted into Indian currency at the rate on the date of the imposition of the liability. He has sought support in this behalf from the decisions in D. I Ferdinando vs. Simon & Company, Limited (1) and S. S. Celia vs. SS. Volturno (2) which lay down the principle that: - "in arriving at a proper equivalent in British currency for the purposes of assess ing damages the rate of exchange prevailing between the two countries on the dates when the breach of contract was committed and not that prevailing at the date of the judgment should be adopted. " In the present case though liability was assessed on the 22nd of February, 1951, yet instalments had been granted to the petitioner. Had the amount been payable on the 21st of February, 1951. the English decisions, referred to above, would have applied to the facts of this case but when instalments had been fixed the principle laid down in those cases cannot be of much help, because actual liability to pay arises only when the instalments fall due, and had the jharshahi currency continued in force, the amounts payable under the instalments should have been converted into the Indian currency at the rate of convertibility of jharshahi into Indian currency on the dates of the instalments falling due. However, as jharshahi currency has been abolished, the only rate at which liability in jharshahi can be converted into Indian currency is the rate at which jharshahi was withdrawn from circulation. The rate at which that currency was withdrawn is the rate fixed by the then Jaipur State by its notification of the 1st of April, 1931. viz, one jharshahi rupee equal to 17 annas of Indian rupee, The demand of batta on jharshahi at the rate of one anna per rupee whether before or after its abolition, therefore, cannot be regarded as illegal. The petitioner has no case to come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and his application should be dismissed. By the Court: - The petition is dismissed with costs. .;