the present suit for the return of the said vehicles or in the alternative for their value viz., Rs. 31786/8/- on the ground that pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, which in the absence of any proceedings against it had become final, the State Government was bound to hand over the said vehicles. In its written statement the State Government denied the respondent's claim 'and took up diverse pleas. It is not necessary to go into the details of these pleas except to say that the State Government did not raise any contention therein ·that it was not liable for any tortious act committed in respect of the said goods and vehicles by any one of its servants. On these pleadings the trial court raised various issues. No issue with regard to the absence of liability for the tortious act of any servant of the Government was or could be raised in the aforesaid state of pleadings. The evidence led by the State and in particular of the police officer Trambaklal Naranji showed {a) that the said vehicles were seized in 194 7 by the Customs Officer of the State of . Junagadh, ( b) that somehow they were kept in an open space opposite to the police station at Veraval, ( c) that they remained totally uncared for .from 1947 to October, 1951 with the result that the greater part of the machinery of the vehicles, tyres and even some wheels were pilfered away leaving only the skeletons of the vehicles, ( d) that no entries were made in any of the registe~ maintained at the police station to show as to how these vehicles came to be kept in the said open space or whether the customs authority had handed over the said vehicles to the police for safe custody, ( e) that in October, 1951, witness Trambaklal who was then incharge of the police station reported to his superior officers the fact of these vehicles lying in the said open space as uncared and unclaimed vehicles, (f) that on October 3, 1951, directions were given to him to apply to the Magistrate for disposal of the said vehicles as unclaimed property under s. 523, (g) that on October 21, 1951, the police recorded a Panchanan1a as regards the condition of the said vehicles, and (h) that on October 29, 1951 pursuant to the said directions; the police officer made an • application which mentioned the fact that these vehicles were seized by the Port Commissioner in 194 7 from Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam of Veraval, the respondent. It is clear that in spite of the police authorities being aware that the said vehicles were seized from the respondent, his name having been mentioned in the said application, no notice was served upon him of the said application which, as aforesaid, was made on the footing that the said vehicles were unclaimed property. The only notice which was issued by the Magistrate was a public notice which wa' ordered to be pasted at a public place. Clearly, the respondent was right when he said that he was not aware of the said proceedings or the order passed by the Magistrate therein. It appears from the Rojkam of the Magistrate's court that on February
