MADHAB CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. JAJNOO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been issued to show cause why the decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Barpeta, dated 31 March 1927, should not be set aside. The rule has been issued at the instance of the defendant in a suit. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant on the allegations that certain crops which had been grown by him were attached at the instance of the defendant and that subsequently the land was given back to the plaintiff, but that the crops which had been attached were damaged and, in consequence thereof, the plaintiff alleged, he was entitled to recover damages. The defence of the defendant, so far as it was necessary for the purpose of the argument that had been advanced on his behalf was that there was a petition filed by the defendant for proceedings being taken against the plaintiffs under Section 107, Criminal P.C., and that, while the said proceedings were either pending or under contemplation, the paddy standing on the land was attached by the police and kept in the custody of a third person named Ranjit Ram Keot and that the damage that had been caused to the paddy was caused during the time that it was in such custody. The defendant states in his petition to this Court that the said attachment was apparently made under the provisions of Section 146, Criminal P.C. It may be stated, however, that the materials on the record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion as to the circumstances under which and the provisions of the law in consonance with which the said order of attachment was made. All that appears from the record is that the paddy was attached by the Police and kept in the custody of Ranjit Keot and that an order was passed by the criminal Court, on the 16 March 1926, which ran in these words: This primarily is a matter for the civil Court to decide as to who should get the paddy. 14 the claim is decided here, it will not be final. Proceedings struck off.

(2.) The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 54, that is to say, the price of 27 maunds of paddy calculated at the rate of Rs. 2 per maund.

(3.) The substantial contention that has been urged in support of the rule is to the effect that inasmuch as the paddy was not in the custody or possession of the defendant, but that the police had made it over to a third person named Ranjit Ram Keot, it should be taken that such attachment was made under some sort of order legally passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction as a presumption should always be made in favour of the validity of an act done by a public servant, and, if that view be taken, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any damages that may have been caused to the paddy. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Peruvian Guano Co. V/s. Dreyfus [1892] A.C. 166 and a passage in Mayne on Damages, 10 Edn. p. 394, where the principles laid down in that case have been discussed. Broadly stated, the principle laid down by the House of Lords in that case was that, where the possession of some property becomes the possession of the Court, a person, at whose instance the rightful owner may have been deprived of his possession in respect of property no longer remains liable for any damages that may be caused to it.