Skip to content


Pamu Sanyasi and anr. Vs. Zamindar of Jayapur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad540
AppellantPamu Sanyasi and anr.
RespondentZamindar of Jayapur
Cases ReferredIn Yamuna Bai Rani Sahiba v. Solayya
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act - act ix of 1887, section 15, schedule ii, clause 35(j)--compensation for illegal distress--civil procedure code--act xiv of 1882, section 586--second appeal--limitation--rent recovery act (madras)--act viii of 1865, section 78--cause of action complete on date of illegal distress. - - 457 is clearly distinguishable......was involved. the preliminary objection must be overruled. we are of opinion that the suit is time barred. the district munsif finds that the distraint was made on 25th january. the plaintiff's cause of action arose when the distraint was made. in yamuna bai rani sahiba v. solayya kavundan i.l.r. 24 mad. 339 where the court held the suit was not time barred on the ground that the detention was a continuing wrong, the property was detained after the attachment had been set aside. it was this detention which the court held was a continuing wrong. a state of things in which a party does not restore to its owner property which has been released from attachment may be said to constitute a continuing wrong as against the owner of the property. this case seems. to us to be distinguishable.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies in this case since the suit is of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes. The way in which the plaint is drawn shows that the suit is in substance a suit for compensation for illegal distress or attachment and not a suit for the recovery of specific property. The case relied on in support of the preliminary objection Chakradharudu v. Venkataramayya I.L.R. 22 Mad. 457 is clearly distinguishable. In that case certain attachments had been set aside by the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court had ordered that these properties should be restored. The properties were not restored and a suit was brought to enforce their restoration. In that case no question of illegal distress was involved. The preliminary objection must be overruled. We are of opinion that the suit is time barred. The District Munsif finds that the distraint was made on 25th January. The plaintiff's cause of action arose when the distraint was made. In Yamuna Bai Rani Sahiba v. Solayya kavundan I.L.R. 24 Mad. 339 where the Court held the suit was not time barred on the ground that the detention was a continuing wrong, the property was detained after the attachment had been set aside. It was this detention which the Court held was a continuing wrong. A state of things in which a party does not restore to its owner property which has been released from attachment may be said to constitute a continuing wrong as against the owner of the property. This case seems. to us to be distinguishable on the facts from the case now before us.

2. In the case before us the wrong was complete when the unlawful distres was made.

3. We think the Courts below were right in holding that the suit is time barred.

4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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