Skip to content


Chinnasami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Collector of Salem and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.799
AppellantChinnasami Chettiar and ors.
RespondentThe Collector of Salem and anr.
Cases ReferredHarischandra Devu v. President District Board of Ganjam
Excerpt:
madras local boards act (v of 1884), section 76 - levy of local cess--liability of the local board--action against collector. - - 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 24 m. 114, we mast hold that the suit was rightly dismissed against the district board. 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 measure of the damages sustained. except in cases of contractual agency, there is no question of the liability of the doer of.....
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 24 M. 114, we mast hold that the suit was rightly dismissed against the District Board. 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 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 mayor may not be according to circumstances that somebody else is liable also as master or principal.

2. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below as regards the 1st defendant and remand the suit to the District Munsif to be disposed of according to law. The costs as between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant hithereto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree.

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


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