DURVIJAY SINGH Vs. MUNNI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for damages. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the tenants and in culti-vatory possession of certain agricultural plots and after they had collected the harvest of 1351F., on the threshing floor, the defendants took it away. In the next year i. e., 1352F., proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., are said to have been started at the instance of the defendants. The learned Magistrate passed an order attaching the plots in dispute, and the plots having remained under attachment for sometime, the plaintiffs could not cultivate them during 1352F., and thereby they suffered a loss which is claimed in this suit. The damage assessed by the plaintiffs amounted to Rs. 600/- each year, and a total claim of Rs. 1200/- for the two years mentioned above, was made by the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower appellate court found that the claim put forward by the defendants to the plots in dispute had not been proved, and the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs were the tenants, that the plots had been cultivated by them in 1351F., and that the defendants had taken away the' harvest after the plaintiffs had collected it on the threshing floor. He also took the view that the loss relating to the year 1352P., was due to the action taken by the defendants, and he, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the damages and assessed the damages to be Rs. 800/- for the two years. He accordingly decreed the suit for that amount.

(2.) Defendants have now come up to this Court. So far as the claim for damages relating to the year 1351F., is concerned, the finding of the court below that the plaintiffs were the tenants and in cultivatory possession of the plots In that year and that it was their harvest which they had collected on the threshing floor and that the defendants had taken away that harvest are findings of fact and they conclude the matter. I find no ground to differ and I affirm the decision of the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages in respect of the crop of 1351F.

(3.) The claim for the loss which the plaintiffs are alleged to have suffered in 1352F. stands on a different footing. It appears that the defendants had made a report that there was a danger of a breach of the peace, and on the report of the Station Officer of police, the learned Magistrate, who took cognizance of the case, issued an order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. attaching the plots in dispute. Ultimately the proceeding terminated in favour of the plaintiffs and possession was restored to them. The plaintiffs' case is that they were unable to cultivate the plots in question because of the action taken by the defendants and the loss that they had suffered is attributed to that action. The lower appellate court has omitted to consider the important fact that after the defendants had moved in the matter, the order that was passed under Section 145, Cr. P. C., was an order of a judicial nature passed by the Magistrate. Section 145, Cr. P. C lays down