K.L.Bapna, J. - (1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages.
(2.) The plaintiff is the Kishangarh Electric Supply Co. Ltd., and the suit was instituted for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,99,600/-against the United State of Rajasthan in the Court of District Judge, Kishangarh, on 25-111949, on the allegations that on 22-12-1942, the then Kishangarli State granted a licence to Lohawala and Co. of Ajmer for the supply of electricity to Kishangarh and Madan Ganj on certain conditions mentioned in the licence. It was alleged that the Kishangarh State handed over the charge of the building of the Power House, its lands, plants and machines etc. which were of the value of Rs. 50,000/- to Lohawala and Co. It was alleged that the said Lohawala and Co. transferred all its rights in favour of the plaintiff on 7-4-1946, according to the terms and conditions of the licence, and handed over possession of all the lands, buildings and material to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff company carried on work as a licence, and supplied electricity to all the area. It was then alleged that on 259-1946, the then. Kishangarh State forcibly and unlawfully took possession of the building of the Power House, plants and machinery, and other materials along with the account books end registers etc. of the plaintiff company. It was alleged that the plaintiff made several representations in this respect to the then Kishangarh State, and after the formation of Rajasthan, to the Rajasthan Government, and claimed back all the properties, account books and documents, and to compensate for the loss which had occurred to the plaintiff company clue to the high-handed and unlawful action of the then Kishangarh State, but no satisfactory reply had been received. It was then alleged that after taking unlawful possession of the property of the plaintiff as aforesaid, the then Kishangarh State ran the Power House for about ten months, and then gave charge of it to Shri Sumer Electric Supply Co, Ltd., Kishangarh. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,99,600/-as damages for the highhanded and unlawful action of the then Kishangarh State, inasmuch as the plaintiff was dispossessed of the Power House, building, lands, plants and machinery etc. together with the accounts books and registers, according to the following detail: (a) Damages in respect of the Power House building, lands, plant, and machinery, and the cost of the material and accessories. Rs. 1,10,0100/ (b) Loss of outstanding amount for the supply of electricity to the then Kishangarh State, which the plaintiff could not recover due to the forcible dispossession of Its account books. Rs. 35,000/ (c) Loss incurred due to the amount, which was outstanding against the people for the supply of electricity and material and which could not be realised as the account books were in the possession of the defendant. Rs. 5,000/ (d) Damages on account of remuneration paid by the plaintiff company to its Managing Agents for 3 years from 25-9-46 to 34-949. Rs. 12,600/ (e) Expenditure Incurred by the plaintiff in paying its legal advisers and making representations to the State from time to time. Rs. 10,000/ (f) Interest on items (a), (b) and (c) at 6% per annum from 25-9-46 to 24-9-49, Rs. 27,000/- Total Rs. 1,99,600/ It was mentioned that as the account books and registers of the plaintiff were in the possession of the defendant, permission may be granted later on to revise the claims in (a), (b), (c) and (f), if necessity arises. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 25-9-46 when the plaintiff was unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed. It was mentioned that notice under Section 80, C. P. C. had been served on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan on 209-49, but without any result.
(3.) On behalf of the State of Rajasthan a reply was filed on 27-9-1950, in which it was said that the licence was granted to Kanhaiya Lal Lohawala, and he worked under the supervision of the State, but no complete charge was given of the machinery, lands etc. It was pleaded that although at the time of grant of licence, it was settled that a limited company would be floated, in which the Government would have more than half share, and a company did come into existence, but Mr. Lohawala acted in several measures contrary to the terms and conditions agreed to by him, and the shares, which were allotted to the State, were not accepted by the State. When the Company applied for certificate of commencement of business, objection was filed, and the Registrar rejected the application of the plaintiff company for grant of certificate of commencement of business. It was alleged that the plaintiff company never came into possession of the Power House and property, nor could it continue the work, and later on the licence granted to Kanhaiyalal Lohawala was cancelled (by the then Kishangarh State) on 23-9-46, and Orders were passed for taking possession of the Power House etc., and the plaintiff was informed of it. It was pleaded that after the cancellation of the licence, Mr. Lohawala did not hand over possession, and therefore, the possession was taken on 23-9-46 by the order of the Chief Member of Council, Kishangarh. It was alleged that the Power House was run by the (Kishangarh) State for some time, and thereafter licence was granted to Messrs. Sumer Electric Supply Co., and since 1-3-50 the property is again in the possession of the State. The valuation of the property was denied, and it was again stated that the plaintiff company never commenced business, and no loss could have occurred to the said company. It was denied that any account books, registers etc. of the plaintiff were taken possession of by the (Kishangarh) State. It was stated that no cause of action arose for the suit. The fact of the receipt of the notice, and its validity were also denied. Certain other pleas were also taken, which are not of any importance now.;