GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.—This is a civil first appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the decree passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jaipur City granting a decree for Rs. 17,680 as principal sum and interest thereon from the date of notice under S. 80 CPC till the institution of the suit @ Rs. 6% per annum with pendente lite and future interest. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff firm M/s Hand-loom Articles Stores Jaipur on an order by Inspector General of Prisons supplied 12 Pedal looms. According to the plaintiff the said 12 pedal looms were duly completed and installed at the Central Jail, Jaipur on 19th March, 1966, 22nd March, 1966 and 23rd March, 1966. The plaintiff further claimed that the bill for the same was duly passed after all physical and other verification but the said amount of Rs. 17,680/- remains unpaid. On 6th June, 1966 the plaintiff was informed that the amount is being withheld, awaiting final orders from the Government as the pedal looms in fact belonged to M/s Patusari Bunkar Samiti Samiti, Ltd., were hyphotheticated with the Government. The plaintiff claimed that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice about the alleged pledge of the looms and hence he is entitled to payment for the goods supplied by him. The suit was filed on 17th May, 1969 i. e. within 3 years and 2 months under section 80 CPC of the supply of goods. The State Government contested the suit alleging that though 12 pedal looms were supplied brat only 6 were duly installed by the plaintiffs and objection about non execution of the contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India was also raised. 3. The main plea of the State Government was that the said looms were purchased by Patusari Bunkar Sahkari Samiti Ltd. on a loan and grant-in-aid advanced by the Industries Department to the said society and thus looms had been hypotheticated with the Government. The society could not have sold the said looms to the plaintiff without the permission of the Government till the entire loan were repaid by the society. The society could not have sold the said looms to the plaintiff without the permission of the Government till the entire loan were repaid by the society. The Director of Industries had lien and charged on all these looms and hence the plaintiff cannot claim payment for the goods on which the State Government had charged, unless the loan was repaid and charge was satisfied. The claim of the plaintiff that he was a bonafide purchaser from the Co-operative Society was also disputed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. In support of the issues framed, the parties led evidence, oral and documentary. The trial court on a discussion of the evidence held under issue No. 1 that the suit is within limitation, under issue No. 2 that execution of a formal contract as required under Art. 299 of the Constitution of India is not very material in this case as principle and provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act can be invoked; under issue No. 3 that the notice u/s 80, CPC was valid; under issue No. 4 that the plaintiff supplied 12 pedal looms in good condition and perfectly working order and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof; and under issue No. 5 the plaintiff was held entitled to interest from the date of notice u/s 80 CPC. Thus the trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 17,680/-as mentioned above. 5. Shri N. L. Pareek, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submitted that there was no contract under Art. 299 of the Constitution of India as it was never executed by the parties and, therefore, the suit for enforcing any right based on any contract cannot be decreed. It was further argued that only 6 pedal looms were installed and other 6 were not installed and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have claimed the price. 6. Shri Pareek then argued that the trial court was prejudiced and biased against the State and framed the issues putting burden on the State by an illegal approach to the case. According to Shri Pareek, the discussion of the evidence suffers from some infirmities and the judgment is vitiated because of the bias. 7. Shri G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has repudiated and controverted the allegations made by Shri Pareek. According to Shri Pareek, the discussion of the evidence suffers from some infirmities and the judgment is vitiated because of the bias. 7. Shri G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has repudiated and controverted the allegations made by Shri Pareek. According to him, the pleadings of the parties are to be scrutinised for framing of the issues Since the defendant did not contest the receipt of the pedal looms and the contest was limited to the non-installation of 6 pedal looms, the trial court was justified in placing the burden on the defendant-State. 8. Shri Garg then argued that in any case, no protest was made by the State for placing the burden of proof of issue No. 4 on the State and the evidence was led voluntarily, and now it is too late to make any grievance on it. Shri Garg submitted that the judgment is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and it is unjust and uncharitable against the judicial officer who is not present before the court, to allege that he is biased to the State without there being any data to support it. 9. Shri Garg then submitted that the parties cannot be forced to execute the contract and, since it is sale of goods and, therefore, irrespective of the agreements, the State is bound to pay the price of it. 10. In support of his contention, Shri Pareek relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kirorilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1). It was a case of mining lease where the lease was executed by the Mining Engineer, which was beyond his powers. It was held that the lease was void and was not binding and the plea of estoppel against the State Government was not accepted. When the question of application of the provisions ofS.70 of the Indian Contract Act come, their Lordships of this court held that three conditions are required to establish a right of action at the suit of a person who does anything for another; (1) the thing must be done lawfully; (2) it must be done by a person not intending to act gratuitously, and (3) the person for whom the act is done must enjoy the benefit of it. In that case, the plaintiff was refrained by Rajasthan Government from interfering with Madhya Pradesh Government from carrying sand. In that case, the plaintiff was refrained by Rajasthan Government from interfering with Madhya Pradesh Government from carrying sand. In these circumstances, it was held that all that was done was to restrain the plaintiff and this was not positive action warranting compensation. 11. Obviously, the principles laid down in the above case are not applicable because in the present case the positive act has been done by the purchase of pedal looms and accepting their delivery. This pertinent distinction on the facts of the present case makes it clear that the principles, though applicable, are distinguishable in the present set of circumstances. 12. Shri Pareek then pointed out that in State of Rajasthan v. Raghunath Singh (2), this court has held that the lease for minor mineral under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules should be expressed in terms of the article and if it is not so. it would not be valid. Obviously, there is no discussion of the applicability of S. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, as only question was whether the lease can be enforced even in the absence of the valid contract under Art. 299 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned that even then in Para 22, the Court allowed a decree for Rs. 4715/- for the amount which, they have deposited with the State by application of S. 70 of the Indian Contract Act. While doing so, their Lordships in that case, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. B. K. Mondal (3) for the proposition that in such cases, S. 70 applied. The above authority cited by Shri Pareek, is, therefore an authority for the proposition that S. 70 of the Indian Contract Act can be applied; and that being so, I am of the opinion that the trial court was justified in deciding the issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 13. Shri Pareek then relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar E. G. F. Co-op. Socy. vs. Sipahi Singh (4). It was a case for issue of a writ of mandamus and it was in that context that it was held that when the contract is void, the State cannot be estopped by principle of estoppel. Obviously, there is no relevancy of this in the present case. 14. Socy. vs. Sipahi Singh (4). It was a case for issue of a writ of mandamus and it was in that context that it was held that when the contract is void, the State cannot be estopped by principle of estoppel. Obviously, there is no relevancy of this in the present case. 14. It was then argued that so far as the burden of issue No. 4 is concerned, it was wrongly cast on the defendant; and that has prejudiced the case of the defendant. 1 am of the opinion that in view of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court was justified in keeping the burden of proving the issue No. 4 on the defendant. It may be noticed that in the written statement, expressly the receipt of 12 pedal looms is admitted. All that was claimed was that six of them were not proper and were not properly installed. In such circumstances, the burden of proof was lay on the defendant, and I do not find any prejudice or bias of the trial court against the State. 15. It may also be pointed out that as per the statement of Motilal (Pw 1) and Bbimraj (Pw 2) the six pedal looms were also installed which were disputed and even the testimony of Umesh Chandra (Pw 3) fails to convince that six of them were not installed and were not of the requisite standard. 16. It is important to note that the bill was verified by the Manager with the endorsement that the articles mentioned in the bill have been received in correct weight and good conditions. It is surprising that inspite of the verification of the manager and another endorsement of the Store keeper, the State has choosen to contest the suit in appeal. 17. On a careful study of the entire evidence including the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant, I am convinced that the defendant has failed to show that only 6 pedal looms were installed and other six were not installed, and were not supplied in a proper manner. In my view, the trial court was justified in placing great reliance on Ex. 2, the bill, containing endorsement of the manager and Store keeper. 18. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.