(1.) The main question of law in this Second Appeal turns on the true construction of section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 1864) which provides :
(2.) In the present case the lower appellate Court has found that the appellant (a village munsif) had distrained a buffalo belonging to the respondent for arrears of land revenue, without complying with the formalities prescribed by section 8 of the Act and that the appellant had seized the buffalo from a place outside his jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court has also found that in effecting the seizure, the appellant had acted maliciously. In that view the lower appellate Court has held that the period of limitation prescribed by section 59 is not applicabfe to the case.
(3.) So, the question in this case is whether the distraint is a "proceeding under the Act ". If it is, section 59 applies ; if it is not, the section does not apply. On this question there is a divergence of judicial opinion in the Madras High Court. In an early case Venkata v. Chengadu and others, (1888) I.L.R.112 Mad. 168, a Full Bench of four Judges repelled the contention that section 59 of Act II of 1864 was not applicable to cases of fraud, and it can only apply when the procedure prescribed by the Act has been duly followed. Muthuswami Ayyar, J., with whom the other Judges agreed, said at page 175: