P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This is the State's appeal, arising out of a suit for compensation, brought against it under the following circumstances:
(2.) By an order dated September 4, 1943, Sri T.A. Menon, the then Additional District Magistrate of Midnapore, seized a stock of rice (305 mds. and 29 3/4 srs.) belonging to the plaintiff (Produce Trader's Corporation, having as its sole Proprietor and owner J. C. Hui) and kept by it in the custody of the Bengal Bank Ltd. as security against over draft advances, taken by it from the said Bank. The seizure was for alleged violation or contravention of the Defence of India Rules, for which a prosecution of the plaintiff's manager Provat Chandra Banerjee followed. Eventually, however, it was found that no charge could be framed under the law for the alleged offence and, accordingly, the plaintiff's said Manager was discharged.. The seized rice was, however, not released or returned to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attempt to get back the same having proved abortive, the present suit was instituted, on February 18, 1946. The suit was once decreed by the trial Court on February 6, 1947, for Rs. 11,166-1-0 including interest to the extent of Rs. 1,993-12-0 as claimed in the plaint, after overruling all the defences of the State which were all technical in character. On appeal, the rejection of the said defences was affirmed by this Court, but, as, before it, a new legal defence was raised on behalf of the defendant State that the compensation claimed being for tortious acts of the said defendant's servants, for which the said defendant (State) could not be made liable except on proof inter alia that the said acts had been ratified by the State or the State had profited or benefited by it, this Court by its judgment and decree, dated August 2, 1930, set aside the trial Court's decree and sent back the case for consideration of the said new defence after necessary amendment of the pleadings or the filing of additional pleadings and taking of further evidence on certain terms. The remand order of this Court also permitted the defendant State to raise a subsidiary point to the effect that the plaintiff's claim of interest in the plaint was excessive.
(3.) The terms of the remand order having been complied with by the parties, the suit was further heard by the trial Court on the above two points and it was again decreed on September 8, 1952,--this time for a lesser sum, namely, Rs. 10,501-8-0, that is, Rs. 9,172-5-0 by way of compensation, calculated on the price of the seized rice (305 mds. 29 3/4 srs.) at Rs. 30/- per maund, and Rs. 1329-3-0 as interest thereon from September 4, 1943, till February 18, 1946, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The present appeal is directed against the said decree.;