Skip to content


Ramaswami Ayengar Vs. Raja Muthuswami Aiyer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.799
AppellantRamaswami Ayengar
RespondentRaja Muthuswami Aiyer and anr.
Excerpt:
attachment wrongful - damages--malice--not necessary for damages--master and servant--tort by government servant--no cause of action against government. - .....damages sustained and damages for injury to his reputation. the district munsif found that the bull belonged to the defaulter and not to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. on appeal the district munsif's decree without deciding whether the bull belonged to the plaintiff or not. the judge is wrong in holding that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove any malice to be entitled to recover damages actually sustained by him by the attachment of his property for revenue due by a stranger. the second appeal is not pressed as against government, as indeed it could not lie, there being no cause of action against government.2. we reverse the decree so far as the first defendant is concerned and remand the appeal as against him for fresh disposal according to law. the costs of the.....
Judgment:

1. For arrears of revenue due to Government, the first defendant, a Village Munsif, attached a bull which the plaintiff alleges belonged to him. The Government revenue being subsequentlu paid, the plaintiff got back his bull. The present suit against the Village Munsif and the Government is for damages sustained by him, both as actual pecuniary damages sustained and damages for injury to his reputation. The District Munsif found that the bull belonged to the defaulter and not to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Munsif's decree without deciding whether the bull belonged to the plaintiff or not. The Judge is wrong in holding that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove any malice to be entitled to recover damages actually sustained by him by the attachment of his property for revenue due by a stranger. The second appeal is not pressed as against Government, as indeed it could not lie, there being no cause of action against Government.

2. We reverse the decree so far as the first defendant is concerned and remand the appeal as against him for fresh disposal according to law. The costs of the plaintiff and the first defendant will abide the result of the fresh hearing. The appellant will pay the costs of the second respondent in this Court.


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