9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... briefly stated. In accordance with the terms of the registered deed of exchange executed by the parties on July 16, 1951, the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 120/50 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City whereunder the State Government agreed to give in exchange plot No. O/17 located in Scheme on resumption of his plot bearing No. C/91 in the same scheme and handed over possession to the State Government on the aforesaid plot No. C/91, but the State Government on their part did not give possession of the exchanged plot to him, in consequence whereof the appellant instituted a suit for possession of the exchanged plot and for mesne profits thereof against the State Government being Civil Suit No. 270/51 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The State Government in their written statement pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable since the plot which was to be given in exchange to the appellant did not belong to them, but did not disclose as to whom the said plot belonged. The appellant therefore served interrogatories on the State Government. In reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted land admeasuring 5000 square yards @ ₹ 7 per square yard amounting to ₹ 35,000 and to this he added ₹ 826.50p. as the cost of construction of a boundary wall i.e. ₹ 35,826,50p. in all. There ensued a correspondence between the State Government and the appellant as regards the payment of compensation. It was felt by the State Government that the assessor had wrongly taken into consideration parta rates or the Municipal Committee, Jaipur which could not form any legal basis for assessing the value of the disputed land which admittedly was situated outside the walled city of Jaipur, nor could he have taken into consideration the rates for the sale of plots of commercial site at a distance from the disputed land. The State Government accordingly declined to pay ₹ 35,826.50p. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on February 4, 1957, as plaintiff, for recovery of ₹ 47,741.50p. i.e. ₹ 35,826.50p. as value of the disputed land in 1951 and ₹ 11,915 as interest at 6% per annum by way of damages. The State Government contested the plaintiff's claim and pleaded inter alia that the State Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that therefore the appraisement or valuation made by D.N. Gupta in his report (Exh.5) dated February 21, 1956 could not be treated as an 'admission of liability' under s.20 of the Evidence Act on the part of the State Government. He further held that the correct value on the basis of the notification issued by the Urban Improvement Board clearly showed that the parta rate of the Municipal Committee, Jaipur was not applicable to the disputed land which was situate outside the old walled city of Jaipur and that the correct value thereof could be assessed on the basis of C Scheme rates and therefore the value of the disputed land ₹ 17,500. The learned Judge however held that the plaintiff was entitled to receive damages by way of interest @ 6% per annum. On appeal the High Court held that the plaintiff had to prove that the State Government had agreed to be bound by the assessment made by D.N. Gupta before s.20 of the Evidence Act could be attracted and that there was no evidence that the State Government had ever agreed to be bound by the said assessment. As regards, the letter addressed by the Chief Minister to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are admissions. Illustration The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. A says to B- Go and ask C, C knows all about it. C'S statement is an admission. S.20 is the second exception to the general rule laid down in s.18. It deals with one class of vicarious admission i.e. admissions of persons other than the party. Where a party refers to a third person for some information or an opinion on a matter in dispute, the statements made by the third person are receivable as admissions against the person referring. The reason is that when a party refers to another person for a statement of his views, the party approves of his utterance in anticipation and adopts that as his own. The principle is the same as that of reference to arbitration. A position analogous to that of agency is created by the reference. The reference may be by express words or by conduct, but in any case there must be a clear intention to refer, and such admissions are generally conclusive. As Ellenbrough, L.C.J. said in Williams v. Innes from which the illustration is taken: If a man refers another upon any particular business to a third person he is bound by what this third pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy stated, the assessor, D.N. Gupta submitted his report (Exh.5) dated February 21, 1956 wherein he valued the land @ ₹ 7 per square yard, that is, at ₹ 35,000 and added the cost of construction of the boundary wall at ₹ 826.50p. totalling ₹ 35,826.50p. The State Government not being satisfied at the exorbitant value so determined were not prepared to accept the valuation made by the assessor D.N. Gupta. Accordingly, the Secretary (Local Self Government) by his letter dated March 14, 1956 asked him to explain the basis of valuation adopted by him. In reply thereto, D.N. Gupta by his letter dated March 19, 1956 disclosed that he had assessed the value of the disputed land, at the least possible price, taking the value of lands spread over between the years 1948 and 1955 and that he had adopted the parta rates of the Municipal Committee, Jaipur for determining the value of the disputed land. While we feel that the High Court was not right in excluding from its consideration the Chief Minister's letter dated February 3, 1956 on the ground of want of proof, the document by itself does not substantiate the plaintiff's claim that the parties had by mutu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to compensation at a much lesser rate. The matter however does not end there. The transaction of exchange which fell through in 1951 was entered into before the formation of the State of Rajasthan. At that time, Jaipur was not the capital of the State, and there was no trend in rise of prices of land. Once it was known that Jaipur would be the capital, the value of land particularly in an exclusive area near and around the palatial bungalow of the Maharani of Mysore (which later became Raj Bhawan) which was extremely scarce, had naturally shot up. The land in dispute was situate near the railway station and which, according to the High Court, was lesser in value than land in C Scheme. Taking all these factors into consideration we think it just and proper to award the appellant a sum of ₹ 25,000 as compensation towards the value of the exchanged plot and to award him a reasonable rate of interest to offset the spiral rise of value of land in the city of Jaipur. We are clearly of the view that the plaintiff having been deprived of the property was entitled to a reasonable rate of interest on the amount found to be due to him. In somewhat similar circumstances the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
