- (1.) The facts which give rise to this second appeal are as follows: Sahdeo Plaintiff and Shiva Charan were brothers. It has been found by both the courts below that they were members of a joint Hindu family and were pint owners of the property attached. The property was attached Under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate, Defendant No. 2, as Shiva Charan had been challaned by station officer, Sri Kartar Singh, Defendant No. 3, in a dacoity case and was reported to be absconding or concealing himself. After' attachment, part of the attached property was given in the supurdagi of Altaf Husain, Defendant No. 4 and Mohammad Umar, Defendant No. 5.
(2.) The Plaintiff was in hospital at the time of the attachment and when he came out he moved the learned Magistrate, Defendant No. 2, under the provisions of Section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the attached goods as he claimed them to be his own. The learned Magistrate on 23-8-1948 ordered the release of some of the attached goods and cattle to the Plaintiff but they were never delivered to him. In consequence, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the State of U.P., Defendant No. 1, the Magistrate, Defendant No. 2, station officer Kartar Singh, Defendant No. 3, and the two supurdars, Altaf Husain, Defendant No. 4 and Mohammad Umar, Defendant No. 5 and claimed Rs. 2,000/- as damages in respect of the goods not returned.
(3.) The learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that in view of the provisions of the Judicial Officer's Protection Act No. XVIII of 1850 the suit against Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was not maintainable. It was also of opinion that Defendant No. 1, the U.P. Government, was not liable and that the Plaintiff had failed to prove any amount of damages. On these findings, the learned trial court dismissed the suit.;