MUSSAMAT SUBJAN BIBI AND OTHERS Vs. SHEIKH SARIATULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaint alleges that the defendant, in execution of a decree in the Sadder Ameen's Court, against one Khezar Buksh, on the 16th of June 1866, caused certain cattle belonging to the plaintiffs to be attached; that the plaintiffs claimed the cattle, under section 216; and that their claim was allowed and that the cattle were released, and all except three bullocks which had died, were restored to the plaintiffs on the 28th of September 1866. The plaint goes on to state that as the cattle were attached at the time of cultivation, the plaintiffs' jote remained uncultivated for the year. The plaintiffs claimed damages, rupees 734, as the value of the crops which might have been raised, and rupees 61, as the value of the three bullocks which died. The plaintiffs proved that the lands remained uncultivated during the year, and gave evidence as to the value of the crop which might have been raised. The Munsiff dismissed the suit. He found that the plaintiffs were not under any necessity to leave the land uncultivated during the attachment; that the plaintiffs might have cultivated the land by hiring other bullocks, or settled it with somebody; and as to the bullocks said to have died, he did not believe the evidence that thirteen bullocks were attached.

(2.) The Principal Sudder Ameen reversed this decision, on the ground that though the damages claimed by the plaintiffs were too remote, that was no ground for dismissing the suit altogether. He awarded, in respect of the detention of the cattle for three months and 13 days, the sum of rupees 57-13, being the sum which he considered would have been the costs to the plaintiff of hiring other cattle. He disallowed the claim for the value of the bullocks which died, on the ground that there was nothing to show that they had died from any neglect, as he considered it had been proved that they were properly fed while kept under attachment. From that decision the plaintiff has appealed.

(3.) It has been contended before us, in special appeal, on the part of the plaintiffs; first that the damages claimed in respect of the Aughani crop ought to have been allowed; secondly, that the Principal Sadder Ameen ought to have awarded to the plaintiffs the full value of the bullocks which died while under attachment. The defendant, on cross appeal, objected that he was not liable at all for the seizure of the cattle.