Basi Reddy, J. - (1.) The main question of law in this Second Appeal turns on the true construction of section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 1864) which provides : "Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent parties defining themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act, except as hereinbefore provided, from applying to the civil Courts for redress : Provided that civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action, unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose."
(2.) In the present case the lower appellate Court has found that the appellant (a village munsif) had distrained a buffalo belonging to the respondent for arrears of land revenue, without complying with the formalities prescribed by section 8 of the Act and that the appellant had seized the buffalo from a place outside his jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court has also found that in effecting the seizure, the appellant had acted maliciously. In that view the lower appellate Court has held that the period of limitation prescribed by section 59 is not applicabfe to the case.
(3.) So, the question in this case is whether the distraint is a "proceeding under the Act ". If it is, section 59 applies ; if it is not, the section does not apply. On this question there is a divergence of judicial opinion in the Madras High Court. In an early case Venkata v. Chengadu and others, (1888) I.L.R.112 Mad. 168, a Full Bench of four Judges repelled the contention that section 59 of Act II of 1864 was not applicable to cases of fraud, and it can only apply when the procedure prescribed by the Act has been duly followed. Muthuswami Ayyar, J., with whom the other Judges agreed, said at page 175: "The true import of the expression ' aggrieved by any proceedings under the Act' is not that the proceedings should be in accordance with the Act and therefore perfectly legal, but that the proceedings, though defective and irregular and therefore not in strict conformity to the provisions of the Act, should be taken professedly under if. If the suggestion of the appellant's counsel were to prevail, there would be no grievance at all to be redressed by a civil Court.";