Skip to content


Rama Mudali Vs. Marappa Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad638
AppellantRama Mudali
RespondentMarappa Goundan
Cases ReferredLess v. Patterson
Excerpt:
- .....to the defendant for the wrongful attachment before judgment by the plaintiff of the defendant's cattle. the suit against the defendant was one on a promissory note and the plaintiff presented an application for an order of attachment of the defendant's cattle. an interim order was made and eventually after hearing both parties the interim order was made absolute and the defendant's property was attached. later on, before the suit had been decided and without having obtained any order setting aside the order attaching his property, the defendant put in an application for compensation on the ground that his cattle had been wrongfully attached. that application was entertained by the district munsif who coming to the conclusion that the defendant's property had been wrongfully attached,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Beasley, C.J.

1. This petition is presented against an order made by the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam awarding compensation to the defendant for the wrongful attachment before judgment by the plaintiff of the defendant's cattle. The suit against the defendant was one on a promissory note and the plaintiff presented an application for an order of attachment of the defendant's cattle. An interim order was made and eventually after hearing both parties the interim order was made absolute and the defendant's property was attached. Later on, before the suit had been decided and without having obtained any order setting aside the order attaching his property, the defendant put in an application for compensation on the ground that his cattle had been wrongfully attached. That application was entertained by the District Munsif who coming to the conclusion that the defendant's property had been wrongfully attached, awarded him damages. Subsequently the suit went to trial and a decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed.

2. This case of course does not fall to be decided in the light of how the suit resulted. The question is whether or [not the attachment was wrongful and whether an application for compensation could be made without the order of attachment which was made in the presence of all parties being set aside. In my view, on the authority of Less v. Patterson (1878) 7 Ch.D. 866, and other oases the application for compensation could not be made until in appropriate proceedings the order of attachment had been set aside, and it was not open to the District Munsif to entertain the application for compensation at all. It follows that that order must be set aside and this civil revision petition allowed with costs.


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