Skip to content


Chinnasawmi Chettiar and ors. Vs. Collector of Salem and District Board of Salem - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ771
AppellantChinnasawmi Chettiar and ors.
RespondentCollector of Salem and District Board of Salem
Cases ReferredHarischandra Devu v. President District Board of Ganjam I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 2. as regards the suit against the collector we see no reason to think it is badly framed.1. we do not think the district board is liable. the collector was the person who levied the cess under section 76 of the local boards act. following the decision in harischandra devu v. president district board of ganjam i.l.r. (1900) m. 114, we must hold that the suit was rightly dismissed as against the district board.2. as regards the suit against the collector we see no reason to think it is badly framed. the basis of the action is that the collector acted in excess of his statutory authority. the liability is one which sounds in tort. it is true the plaintiff does not describe the relief claimed as damages for a tort, but as refund of money levied, the money levied is only the measure of the damages sustained. except in cases of contractual agency there is no question of the.....
Judgment:

1. We do not think the District Board is liable. The Collector was the person who levied the cess under Section 76 of the Local Boards Act. Following the decision in Harischandra Devu v. President District Board of Ganjam I.L.R. (1900) M. 114, we must hold that the suit was rightly dismissed as against the District Board.

2. As regards the suit against the Collector we see no reason to think it is badly framed. The basis of the action is that the Collector acted in excess of his statutory authority. The liability is one which sounds in tort. It is true the plaintiff does not describe the relief claimed as damages for a tort, but as refund of money levied, The money levied is only the measure of the damages sustained. Except in cases of contractual agency there is no question of the liability of the doer of the act charged. It may or may not be according to circumstances that somebody else is liable also as master or principal. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below as regards the 1st defendant and remand the suit to the District

3. We must dismiss the second appeal against the 2nd defendant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //