KUNHAPPAU Vs. STATE OF MDRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for damages brought against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Malabar and two officers of the Madras Government. Defendant 1 was the State of Madras, defendant 2 the Grain Purchasing Inspector, Tellicherry, and defendant 3 the Taluk Supply Officer, Tellicherry. Plaintiff was a cultivator owning 26 acres 70 cents of single crop wet land in Vadakkumbad Amsom and 60 cents of wet land in Eranholi Amsam. From the single crop wet land he harvested 554 paras of paddy in September-October 1949 i.e., the Kanni crop of 11 5. On 17-11-1949 he received a notice from the Village Menon of Vadakkumpad to deliver 160 paras of paddy to the procurement authorities under the Madras Foodgrains Procurement Regulation.1947 and Malabar Foodgrains Procurement Regulation.1947. This demand was made on the basis that from the paddy harvested by him plaintiff was entitled to keep only the paddy necessary for the next cultivation and the paddy required for domestic consumption till 16-1-1950. Upon receipt of the notice, the plaintiff gave a petition (Ext. B1) to defendant 3, the Taluk Supply Officer, stating that, as he had only 60 cents of land to be cultivated for the Makaram crop of 1125, he might be allowed to deduct from the Kanni crop of the Vadakkumpad lands all the paddy necessary for his domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126 also and that if such deduction was allowed there would be no balance at all available with him for delivery to the procurement officers. Defendant 3 sent this petition to defendant 2, the Grain Purchasing Inspector, for investigation and report, and after taking a statement from the plaintiff, defendant 2 reported that the plaintiff should be directed to deliver 225 paras of paddy. No allowance was given in this report for the domestic consumption of the plaintiff after 16-1-1950. All these happened on 17-11-1949. On the next day, the plaintiff sent a petition (Ext. A3) to the District Supplies Officer, Kozhikode appealing against the decisions of defendants 2 and 3 and praying that he might be allowed to deduct from the stock with him the paddy necessary for his domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126 and also stating that if the decision of the District Supplies Officer was also against him he would surrender the entire stock of paddy available with him. On 19-11-1949 defendant 2 forcibly entered into the plaintiffs house with police assistance, which he requisitioned, and seized and removed from there 225 paras of paddy. The suit was brought for damages in respect of this wrongful entry and seizure, and the total claim for damages made by the plaintiff was Rs. 4,450/- including the price of paddy removed and damages for illegal entry, mental pain, agony, loss of reputation, etc. Defendant 3 was sought to be made liable on the ground that defendant 2 had acted under his orders. All the defendants entered appearance in the court below and contested the suit, contending that there was no contravention of law on the part of defendant 2 and the paddy had been lawfully seized and that defendant 2 had acted bona fide, and so, in any case, the plaintiff was not entitled to get damages. Defendant 1 contended further that, if defendants 2 and 3 had acted malafide, defendant 1 was not liable for damages in respect of their acts. The court below found that the entry into the plaintiffs house and the seizure of the paddy were not illegal and that defendants 2 and 3 had acted in good faith and were protected by S.16 (1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and dismissed the suit in toto. It also recorded a finding that, even if the defendants were liable for damages, plaintiff was entitled to get only Rs. 500/- by way of damages. Plaintiff has filed the appeal from the decree dismissing the suit, confining his claim to damages, however, only to the amount of Rs. 500/- which alone has been found by the lower court as awardable to the plaintiff in case he , is entitled to win in the suit.

(2.) We may say at once that the claim against defendant 1 is unsustainable, for the State cannot be held liable for the wrongful acts committed malafide by its servants.

(3.) So far as defendant 2 is concerned, the plaintiff has got a good case. It is conceded that from the stock of paddy harvested in September-October 1949, i.e., the Kanni crop of 1125, the plaintiff was entitled to retain with him the paddy required for the next cultivation and also for his domestic consumption till the next crop and that he was liable to deliver to the procurement officers only the balance. As the plaintiff had only 60 cents of land available for cultivation for the Makaram crop he was entitled to keep from the paddy harvested in September-October 1949 such paddy as was necessary for the cultivation of the 26 acres 70 cents of single crop land for the Kanni crop of 1126 and for his domestic consumption till the taking of that crop. In estimating this requirement the paddy which he would get from the 60 cents of land in Eranholi Amsam at the Makaram harvest of 1125 also had of course to be taken into consideration. The plaintiffs case is that the stock of paddy available with him in September-October 1949 was insufficient for the above requirements, and so, he was entitled to keep the entire stock with him and was not liable to deliver any portion of it to the procurement officers. The defendants contentions were two-fold. One was that the plaintiff was entitled to retain for domestic consumption only such paddy as was required till the Makaram crop of 1125 and not till the Kanni crop of 1126. According to them, the Makaram crop of 1125 being the next crop to the Kanni crop of 1125 plaintiff could not claim paddy for domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126. Their second contention was that the plaintiff was entitled to retain paddy only for the consumption of himself and his wife and could not claim deductions for the other persons in respect of whom also he had asked for deduction.