YADLA SREERAMULO Vs. P PAPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question that arises for Consideration in this second appeal is as to the interpretation of the words 'bed' and bedding' occurring in Section 14-A which was introduced by way of an amendment in 1959 in the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, Act II of 1864 (Hereinafter called the Act). The question arises in the following way.

(2.) The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. l,000/- towards damages for illegal attachment of the plaintiff's tape cot and for the 1st defendant having abused the plaintift and his son. The 2nd defendant is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st defendant is the Tahsildar at Tenali during the period July, 1964 to July, 1965. The plaintiff is a farmer of Chituvuru village in Tenali taluk The plain tiff owns several lands which are assessed to land revenue. On 19-3-l965 the 1st defendant along with his staff visited the plaintiff's boose and served an attachment order, Ex. B. 2. on the plainstiff's son requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 176, 95 towards arrears of land tax and commercial crop tax. As the plaintiff's son did not pay up the amount a tape cot belonging to the plaintiff was attached and taken away, as shown in the attachment list, Ex. B. 3. After giving the prescribed notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff filed the suit for damages as mentioned above.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying that he bad abused the plaintiff or that the attachment of the tape cot was illegal or irregular The 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating that no excess collection was made from the plaintiff towards land revenue and that in any view he (the 2nd defendant) could not be made liable to pay damages and that the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was not valid.