MANTRALA SIVASANKARA SASTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O. S. No. 7 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate's Court, Kaikalur, is the appellant herein, He filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 453 86 towards damages together with interest at 6% thereon from 24-11-1961. The facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows :- The land measuring Ac. 16 . 77 cents in R. S, Nos, 158, 159 and 57 of China Tummidi village belonged to the plaintiff. In the partition effected between the plaintiff and his father and brothers, an extent of Ac. 12 . 43 cents of laud fell to the share of the plaintiff.

(2.) The partition was later reduced to writing and the deed was registered on 17-10-1957. The plaintiff was a minor at that time and therefore his elder brother was appointed as his guardian and next friend and he was acting as such eversince. Item 3 of the schedule property measuring Ac, 4-34 cents was purchased by the plaintiff after the partition. The entire land revenue due to the Government was duly paid by the plaintiff before the end of March, 1961. It was alleged that there were ill feelings between the village offier and the Revenue Inspector on one side and the father of the plaintiff on the other hand and that the village officer and the Revenue Inspector, in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff, made a demand for Rs. 160/- on 16-7-61 purporting to be the land revenue due for the dalva crop and threatened to collect the amount bv coercive methods. But this amount was paid under protest. On 18-7-61, another demand was made for Rs. 448. 86 paise and this amount was also paid under protest. But out of the said money, an amount of Rs. 160/- was paid back on the ground that the demand was only for Rs. 448 . 86 paise. Though the demands made were illegal and unjust, the pay ments were made to avoid indignity and harassment by way of attachtnent. As the conspiracy of the village officers and the Revenue Inspector to put the plaintiff's family by attaching and selling their lands was defeated, they once again brought into existence the same demand, the particulars of which were not known to the plaintiff and a copy of which was not served on him, without any publication and beat of tom tom and without effecting attachment they brought into existence some records and proceedings as if the crop in one acre of the plaintiff's land in R S. No, 159 was attached and sold for RSI 30/- to one V, Mallikarjuna Rao with whom the plaintiffs father had serious misunderstandings. The said Mallikarjuna Rao is no other then the cousin of the village Munsif and under the guise of the sale in his favour, he suddenly and forcibly cut and carried away the crop in one acre of the land aforesaid and he appropriated the same withs out giving any time to the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief from court. The crop is estimated at Rs, 340/-as the yield of it would be about 17 bags of paddy and hay worth Rs. 20/- per bag. The plaintiff therefore contended that the proceedings of attachment and sale were all illegal, void and were an utter abuse and fraud under the statutory provisions and he therefore prayed for recovery of Rs 400/- as damages with interest at 6% per annum from 24-11-1961, the date of the alleged wrongful sale.

(3.) To this suit, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Krishna was impleaded as the defendant. He filed a writen statement stating that the suit was barred under section 58 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation, It was further alleged that tte plaintiff's father had become a defaulter in payment of the land revenue and therefore steps were taken for attachment and sale of the crop in R. S. No. 159 as provided by the Madras Kevenue Recovery Act The father of the plaintiff was a very influential man and he prevented the bidders from partidpating in the auction and got the standing crop knocked down in favour of his own nominee for a nominal amount. The procedure contemplated by the Madras Revenue Recovery Act was complied with and the plaintiff should have preferred a claim before the Revenue Divisional Officer when the property was attached. The partition between the plaintiff and his father and brothers was alleged to be a nominal onec The ill feelings between the village officer and the Revenue Inspector on one aside and the father of the plaintiff on the other were denied. The lands were assessed to land revenue for the second crop and the plaintiffs father's land were also included. It was therefore alleged that the plaintiff did not suffer any legal injury or damage and that he was not entitled to any damages or interest.