Judgment : 1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, 31.01.2007, in A.S.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 07.09.1998 in O.S.No.44 of 1996 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. 2. I have heard Sri P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and perused the record. 3. Respondent No.1 and her minor son, represented by her, filed the above-mentioned suit for a declaration that they are the owners of the Indira Vikas Patras (for short the IVPs) shown in the plaint schedule; and for a consequential mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1-appellant No.1 not to allow their encashment by any other person pending the suit. 4. The averments in the plaint in brief are that one Voleti Subba Rao, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of minor plaintiff No.2, purchased the IVPs from the office of respondent No.1, the details of which were mentioned in the plaint schedule, on 14.03.1991 for Rs.18,000/-, with a maturity value of Rs.36,000/- after five years from the date of purchase; that he has purchased those IVPs with the maturity value of the National Savings Certificates and the income derived from his insurance business for the years 1989-90 being an LIC agent; that Voleti Subba Rao died on 27.04.1993; that on 05.05.1993, plaintiff No.1 has come to know from the diary left by her husband, the details of the IVPs purchased by her deceased husband and upon finding that the IVPs were missing, she has sent reports to the Inspector of Police, Chirala and also to defendant Nos.1 to 4; that in pursuance of the same, defendant No.2 has directed plaintiff No.1 to approach the Court of law for obtaining necessary declaration about the ownership of the subject IVPs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the above-mentioned reliefs. 5. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the above-mentioned reliefs. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 4, wherein it has been, inter alia, stated that there is an ambiguity with regard to the purchase of the subject IVPs by Voleti Subba Rao; that they admit that Voleti Subba Rao was an LIC and NSC agent; and that they also admit that they advised plaintiff No.1 to approach the Court for appropriate relief to enable them to pay the amount under the subject IVPs. It was averred that the IVPs will not contain the names and particulars of the purchaser, except the stamp of the issued Post Office, the date of maturity and the registration number; that the Department has no right to issue duplicate IVPs in any case, even in the event of being lost or stolen; and that as per the IVP Rules, the amount should be paid only to the presentee of the original IVPs. It was further averred that till the date of filing of the written statement, no other person made any claim for payment of the money under the subject IVPs; that the deceased being an NSC agent, had every possibility to know the serial numbers of the IVPs issued; and that mere furnishing of the serial numbers of the IVPs and the value for which they were issued, will not entitle the plaintiffs to encash the IVPs without presentation of the same. 6. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration sought for with regard to the Indira Vikas Patras as claimed in the plaint? 2. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as P.W-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the defendants, one G.Chenchu Ramaiah was examined as D.W-1. 8. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. On behalf of the defendants, one G.Chenchu Ramaiah was examined as D.W-1. 8. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Besides affirming the judgment of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court has also observed that despite the granting of declaration by the trial Court, the defendants did not make payment to the plaintiffs and that even after passing of a decade after maturity of the subject IVPs, no one else has come forward to claim the amount by presenting the original IVPs. The lower appellate Court has further observed that instead of refusing to pay the proceeds to the plaintiffs, the defendants could have paid the same by obtaining indemnity bond from them, as a precautionary measure. With the above observations, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. 9. It needs to be observed that the defendants have filed this Second Appeal in the year 2007. The appeal was lying dormant for a number of years and eventually, the same was numbered in the year 2013. 10. At the hearing, Sri P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, stated that though the Second Appeal has not been numbered and no order staying the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been passed by this Court, the appellants have not made any payment to the respondents. 11. After an elaborate hearing of this case, this Court feels that the stand taken by the appellants is unacceptable, nay, unfortunate. It is not in dispute that the IVPs with the numbers mentioned in the plaint were issued by appellant No.1. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1996, when the subject IVPs matured, no one else has made any claim for payment of the money under the same. The only defence put forth by the appellants in the suit was that unless the original IVPs are produced, the scheme does not permit payment of money to the plaintiffs. 12. In my opinion, this stand taken by the appellants, who represent the Central Government, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be countenanced. 13. 12. In my opinion, this stand taken by the appellants, who represent the Central Government, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be countenanced. 13. From the admitted fact that an amount of Rs.18,000/-was subscribed and IVPs were issued by appellant No.1 to some one, it is clear that the Central Government has received the money from a private person. By coming out with an ambiguous scheme, which does not even refer the name of the person who has purchased the IVPs in the registers of the issuing authority, the Central Government cannot be allowed to make unjust enrichment of private money by refusing to pay the money to the bona fide claimant on the ground that the IVPs have not been produced. A genuine subscriber to the Scheme cannot be made to suffer on account of the ambiguity in the Scheme. While ordinarily, the document issued by the Department needs to be produced for the purpose of making a claim, that should not be the be all and end of all. The Scheme must provide for alternatives in regard to payment, in the event, the subscriber or the persons claiming through him are unable to produce the original IVP. Generally, in such exigencies, indemnity bonds are executed by the claimants. If there is a genuine apprehension that the finder of the document, under which the claim is made, may make a claim for payment at a later date, nothing prevents the Department from issuing a public notice inviting objections or claims to the claim made by the persons, such as the plaintiffs. If the Scheme does not envisage such a procedure, such a scheme has to be necessarily termed as wholly arbitrary or irrational. The Central Government cannot be allowed to make wrongful gain of the money subscribed by the private persons by floating equivocal and ambiguous Schemes such as the present one. The stand taken by the appellants militates against the doctrine of fairness in action by the State. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I do not, therefore, find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 15. The stand taken by the appellants militates against the doctrine of fairness in action by the State. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I do not, therefore, find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 15. With regard to the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the lower appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by making an observation that the appellants ought to have paid the money under the subject IVPs to the respondents on receiving indemnity bond from them, in my opinion, the lower appellate Court has only made certain observations, which, any right-thinking person would have made irrespective of the scope of the appeal. 16. Here is a case, where a 37-year-old widow has knocked at the doors of justice by complaining that the appellants have taken a very unreasonable stand that she will not be paid the money unless the original IVPs are produced. Her husband who was stated to have subscribed to the scheme and obtained IVPs is no more. In such a situation, when no other claimant has come forward to claim the money under the subject IVPs, the appellants ought to have gracefully made the payment to the respondents. The lower appellate Court, considering the fact that the appellants failed to make payment to the respondents though ten years have lapsed after passing of the decree by the trial Court, has made the above-noted observations. I do not, therefore, find anything wrong in these observations. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law for interference of this Court. 17. On the analysis as above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. This Court hopes that the appellants will put a quietus to this litigation at least now and relieve the respondents from the woes of litigation they have been suffering for nearly two decades.