1. The claim of the plaintiff was a claim for damages which arose in consequence of the wrongful distraint. The suit was not one as has been erroneously stated by the Subordinate Judge for the recovery of paddy that was undelivered, although it ought to have been delivered under the orders of the Head Assistant Collector. According to the plaint, there was no paddy in existence which was not delivered. The damages claimed by the plaintiff was on account of negligence on the part of the defendant in allowing the paddy to be wasted while it was in his custody. The cause of action did not therefore arise out of disobedience to the Head Assistant Collector's orders as held by the Subordinate Judge (assuming that such cause of action lay), but out of the legal distress itself. The negligence complained of was only an aggravation of the original wrong. See Bhagirathi Panda v. Padala Gopaludu, I.L.R. 3 M. 128, The same remark applies to the plaintiff's further claim for the costs incurred in obtaining the release of the property. The suit having been instituted more than six months after the date of the distraint, was clearly barred under Section 78 of the Rent Recovery Act. We must, therefore, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge remanding the suit, and restore the decree of the District Munsif. The costs of the appellant must be paid by the respondent in this and in the lower appellate Court.