Court dismisses appeal citing Article 363 & Contract Act; property meant for education.

The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the suit was not maintainable under Article 363 of the Constitution of India due to the interpretation of the covenant Ex. A-5. Additionally, the plaintiff's claim under Section 70 of the Contract Act was rejected as there was no evidence of a lawful act done for the defendant. The court concluded that the property was intended to be used gratuitously for educational purposes, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Suit maintainability under Article 363 of the Constitution of India.
2. Applicability of Section 70 of the Contract Act.
3. Interpretation of the covenant Ex. A-5 regarding compensation for the use of property.

Summary:

1. Suit Maintainability under Article 363 of the Constitution of India:
The court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the State, arguing that the suit is barred by Article 363 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that Article 363 bars jurisdiction in disputes arising out of agreements or covenants with ex-rulers of Indian States. The court referenced the case of "State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Sawai Tejsinghji Maharaja of Alwar," where the Supreme Court held that disputes involving such covenants fall within the ambit of Article 363. The court concluded that the present case involves the interpretation of the covenant Ex. A-5, and thus, the suit is not maintainable under Article 363.

2. Applicability of Section 70 of the Contract Act:
The court examined whether the plaintiff could claim compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The court noted that Section 70 requires that a person must lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him, not intending to act gratuitously. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that any lawful act was done for the State of Rajasthan or that there was any privity of contract. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Section 70, as there was no evidence of any positive act done by the plaintiff for the defendant, nor any delivery of property.

3. Interpretation of the Covenant Ex. A-5:
The court analyzed the covenant Ex. A-5, which stated that the disputed property would remain in possession and use of the State for educational purposes. The court noted that the covenant did not mention any compensation or rent to be paid to the plaintiff or his predecessor. The court observed that the property had been used for educational purposes since 1930 without any demand for rent or compensation from the erstwhile ruler of Alwar. The court concluded that the intention of the parties was that the property was to be used gratuitously, and no compensation was to be paid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit is barred by Article 363 of the Constitution of India, and the plaintiff failed to establish a claim under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The court also concluded that the covenant Ex. A-5 indicated that the property was to be used gratuitously for educational purposes. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

---