MOHANTA RAGHABANANDA DAS Vs. D V A NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the appellate judgment reversing the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Respondent No. 1 who is defendant No. 2 in the suit is a Civil Supply Sub-Inspector. The other defendant, a paddy procuring sub-agent, against whom the trial court decree was passed and not reversed in the first appeal, is respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. The appellant's case is that respondent No. 1, by fabricating a requisition order, which had been signed in a blank form by the S.D.M., of Russelkonda, illegally seized 196 mds. of paddy from the appellant's grain-pit which was opened at the cost of the appellant and the two defendants removed, the said paddy in eleven carts, the cost of which was also paid by the appellant, and they also took away 24 gunny bags belonging to the appellant. According to the appellant, the price of the paddy removed was Rs. 1237-4-0, the cost of opening the pit was Rs. 15/-, the price of the gunny bags was Rs. 15/-, and the cartage cost was Rs. 27-8-0, thus making a total of Rs. 1295-12-0. Out-of this, the appellant admitted to have received Rs. 1135-8-0, from the defendants and the balance was Rs. 160-4-0. The appellant claimed interest on this amount at Rs. 39-12-0, and thus the total claim made by the appellant was Rs. 200/-. The appellant had advanced an alternate claim of Rs. 200/- as damages in tort for mental pain and falling in the estimation of the public on account of illegal seizure, and he valued the total claim, for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 200/-.

(2.) THE trial court allowed Rs. 43-8-0 as cost incurred by the plaintiff in respect of removal or the paddy, Rs. 15/- as the price of the gunny bags and Rs. 39-12-0 towards interest, thus making a total of Rs. 98-4-0. THE trial court, however, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants for Rs. 200/- as claimed, the residual amount over Rs. 98-4-0 being damages which had been alternatively claimed. THE plea of the respondent No. 1 that he had seized and removed the paddy under the written authority of the S. D. M., was not accepted by the trial court who came to a finding that the said authority had been fabricated. THE trial court rejected the plea of respondent No. 1 that the absence of a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., was fatal to the suit. THE appellate court, while agreeing with the finding of the trial court that the authority on which respondent No. 1 claimed to have acted was a fabricated one, hold that a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., was necessary and so allowed respondent No. 1's appeal.