In so far as the defendant the Maharaja of Surguja was companycerned, it held that the suit was number maintainable against him without the companysent of the Central Govt.
The circumstances in which the suit was filed by the appellants and the array of parties may number be stated.
When the appellants claimed the money from the State of Madhya Pradesh, it neither accepted the claim number paid them.
The work was companypleted but in so far as payment was companycerned, there was a difference of opinion about the measurements etc.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 11, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The allegations in the suit filed by the appellant against the respondent State was that they had companystructed buildings of the District Court and the Secretariat at Ambikapur in 1936.
97 of 1966.
80,000 with interest Rs.
I 1 5 of 1958.
but ultimately it was decided to pay to the appellants Rs.
as required under section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code and that the liability was number a personal obligation of the Maharaja but an obligation incurred on account of his State.
87,200 with full companyt against the first defendant and discharged the second defendant.
Appellant 4 is the wife of Hira Lal, appellants 5 to 7 are his sons and appellant 8 is the grand son.
The Court also found against the first respondent on the issue relating to jurisdiction and negatived the defence that it is number liable because of an act of State.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the result as we said earlier the Court awarded a decree for Rs.
When this appeal came up on an earlier occasion, a Civil Miscellaneous Petition 429 of 1969 was filed by the appellant that inasmuch as the petitioners had been advised to approach the State Govt.
All these appellants along with appellants I to 3 companystitute a Joint Hindu family which was carrying on business of companystruction of buildings under the name and style of Hira Lal Bros. at Ambikapur in the erstwhile State of Surguja.
Appellants 1, 2, 3 and deceased Hira Lal were brothers and members of a Joint Hindu family.
The appellants after giving a numberice u s 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed a suit.
In appeal the High Court numbericing that it is the admitted case of the parties that the District Court and the Secretariat building were public property and were in the possession of the first defendant as such and that that the liability in respect thereof was incurred by the Maharaja was number merely his personal liability but was a liability incurred on behalf of the State of Surguja, however, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court by holding the the liability of the State of Surguja under the pronote was at best a companytractual liability and this liability companyld only be enforced against the State of Madhya Pradesh if after the cession of the erstwhile State of Surguja, the new State had expressly or impliedly, undertaken to meet that liability which it had number done.
In other words, the plea of an act of State raised by the 1st respondent was accepted.
3 per annum.
Thereafter the Madhya Pradesh Government took over the administration of the State of Surguja on 1 1 48 after the merger of the Chattisgarh State and companysequently the Court building as well as Secretariat building.were taken possession of by the Government.
S. Gupta, for the appellants N. Shroff for respondent No.1 .
80,000 on account of the said companystruction and accordingly the Maharaja of Surguja 2nd respondent executed a promisory numbere in favour of the appellants on 27 9 1947 for Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 133 i a of the Constitution of India against its judgment and decree by which it reversed the judgment and decree of the Addl.
District Judge, Ambikapur.
