STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SYED AKBAR ALI SYED AHMAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree dated the 28th of October, 1960 passed in favour of the respondent by, the Addl. District Judge Guna, in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1960 of his Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff entered into a contract with the Divisional Forest Officer of rajasthan State for preparing 'kattha' from the forest trees in Sironj subdivision and deposited a sum of Rs. 5130/- by way of cash security in the Rajasthan State treasury. The Sironj sub-division was, on the passing of the States Reorganisation act, 1956 transferred to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff, therefore, deposited the monies payable under the contract in the office of the Divisional forest Officer Guna and carried on the work of preparing 'kattha' as originally agreed between himself and the State of Rajasthan. On the completion of the contract he demanded refund of the amount of Rs. 5130/- deposited as cash security. The State of Madhya Pradesh declined to pay this amount; stating that it had not received the same from the State of Rajasthan. Hence the suit which was contested on the grounds (1) that the Rajasthan State was a necessary party to the suit, (2) that the defendant could not be made liable to pay the amount claimed, until the State of Rajasthan made payment of the same to the defendant, and (3) that the Court at Guna had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 87 of the States reorganisation Act, 1956 the original contract, which was entered into on behalf of the Rajasthan State, would, after the States Reorganisation Act came into force, be deemed to have been made by the State of Madhya Pradesh; with the result that the State of Rajasthan was not a necessary party to the suit--all its rights and liabilities under the contract having become the rights and liabilities of the successor State of Madhya Pradesh. The contract having been worked out, after the State Reorganisation, as between the Divisional Forest Officer Guna and the present plaintiff, the suit was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at guna. The trial Court, therefore, decreed the claim of the plaintiff for refund of the principal amount claimed, but passed only a conditional decree in respect of the plaintiff's claim for interest. The State Government has now come up in appeal before this Court.