9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (10) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. The Plaintiff averred that these buildings were requisitioned by the Government under Sub-rule (i) of Rule 59-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Defence Rules for the purpose of storing food-grains and possession thereof was taken over by the said Government Defendant. The buildings consisted of a godown scouring shed, boiler house, foundry, smithy shed and power house. It was alleged in the plaint that the Defendant had occupied these buildings for the purpose of storing grain from 1st June 1949 and the Plaintiff was demanding rent from the Government but it did not pay anything towards the rent to the Plaintiff. It was further alleged that stone ballast costing ₹ 5,133 was stored by the Plaintiff for its own use which was utilised by the Defendant without paying any price for it. Hence the Plaintiff claimed ₹ 54,000 rent at the rate of ₹ 1500 p.m. and ₹ 5,133 as the price of the stone ballast. 3. The Defendant pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not properly instituted; the property having been requisitioned under Rule 59-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Defence Rules the suit challenging the order passed by the Defendant fixing compensation at ₹ 300 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and compensation is not maintainable. The third is that the rent and compensation allowed by the trial Judge for the use and occupation of the buildings is excessive. The merits of these pleas have to be considered in the present appeal. 7. The suit was brought by Shree Karan Singh Woollen Mills Limited and the plaint was signed and verified by Mr. R.N. Dulloo. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that Mr. Dulloo was not an authorised agent of the Plaintiff company and not entitled to file the suit. 8. This contention is without force. The Plaintiff company had appointed Kashmir Cloth General Agency Limited as their managing agents and gave all the powers of management to the said company. The Kashmir Cloth General Agency Limited who were appointed managing agents by the Plaintiff company executed an agreement dated 2-9-1946 by which they accepted their appointment as the managing agents of the Plaintiff company. The managing agents had in turn appointed Mr. Dulloo who is the chief officer of the Plaintiff company as duly authorised agent to conduct all civil suits on their behalf by virtue of the power of attorney executed in his favour. The present suit was filed by M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iting requisition any property movable or immovable, and may make such further orders as appears to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisition. Provided that no property used for the purpose of religious worship and no such property as is referred to in Rule 57, shall be requisitioned under this rule. 12. The argument on behalf of the Appellant is that the words may make such further orders as appear to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning used in the rule are wide enough to include the order made fixing the compensation in respect of the requisitioned property and the order of the Government fixing compensation at ₹ 300 could not be challenged in civil court. 13. In my opinion Rule 59-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Defence Rules has no application to the present case. Fixing of compensation cannot fall within the ambit of an order which is contemplated by Rule 59-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Defence Rules. The words referred to above which appear in the rule include those acts which are necessary to take possession of the property which is requisitioned by the State: for instance it may be in the possession of a third party w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly express or clearly implied. 15. There being no statutory provision barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of compensation of immovable property. I am clearly of the view that Rule 59 (R. 59-A?) of the Jammu and Kashmir Defence Rules is not a bar to the maintainability of the present suit and cannot be pleaded in answer to the Plaintiff's claim. 16. Now I propose to deal with the third plea raised by the Appellant's counsel that the rent and compensation allowed by the trial Court for use and occupation of the buildings is excessive and that ₹ 300 assessed by the Deputy Commissioner as rent for the buildings was correct. 17-20. It was for the Plaintiff to show that the rent claimed by them at the rate of ₹ 1,500 p.m. was not excessive and was just and proper. (His Lordship considered the evidence and proceeded). 21. The learned trial Judge has relied on the bills sent by the Plaintiff for the rent of the buildings requisitioned by them and he has found that the amount of rent mentioned in the bills was fair and proper and, therefore, allowed the Plaintiff's claim at the rate of ₹ 1,200 p.m. We have gone through the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
