Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and the other respondents by the plaintiff to recover his produce and in the alternative its price. The appellant had a decree against defendants 4 and 5, in execution of which he got attached, the produce of the plaintiff-respondent. On the responsibility of the appellant, the produce was put in the custody of the Shahanas, defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff filed an objection to the attachment which was allowed and the attachment was removed. Thereafter the defendant-appellant brought a suit under Order 21 Rule 63, Civil P.C., for declaration that the property was liable for attachment and sale in execution of his decree and that it belonged to his judgment-debtor defendants 4 and 5. The suit was dismissed. The property continued in the custody of the appellant's Shahanas. The plaintiff brought this suit to get back his produce. The defendant-appellant contended that the plaintiff had got back the produce, that he (defendant) was not liable and that the suit was time-barred. The trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 200 for the price of the produce against defendants 2 and 3, and the appellant. On appeal by defendant 1, the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
2. Against this decision is the present appeal. Both the Courts have found that the appellant was liable inasmuch as he got the property put in the custody of the Shahanas defendants 2 and 3 on his responsibility. It has also been found by the lower Court that the produce has not been returned to the plaintiff. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Article 29, Limitation Act, applies to the case and the suit is barred. As already stated, on the objection of the plaintiff the property was released from the attachment and consequently no attachment subsisted over the property in dispute. It was open to the plaintiff to have brought a suit after his property had been released from attachment for the price of his property if it was not forthcoming as well as for any damages which might have been caused to him by the wrongful attachment. In this case, the plaintiff does not claim any damages for the wrongful attachment. He simply claims his property and its price if the property be not available. The suit is not for compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process. On the other hand, it is for the return of the property after it had been released from the wrongful attachment. Article 49 Limitation Act will apply to the present case, which applies to suits for specific movable property or for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining the same. Time for such suits begins to run from the time when the property is wrongfully taken or injured or when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful. In this case, the possession of the defendant-appellant and his Shahanas became unlawful after the property was released from attachment. The suit is not time-barred. There is no force in the appeal. It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the decree of the lower Court be confirmed.
3. Permission to file a Letters Patent appeal is granted.