KANHAYA LAL Vs. NATIONAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which affirmed the decision of the District Judge of Delhi. The circumstances out of which the appeal arises can be briefly stated, and, as in their Lordships opinion, the case must go back to the Chief Court for further consideration, their Lordships think it desirable to say nothing about the case which is not absolutely necessary.

(2.) In the year 1902, a case was pending, in which the National Bank of India was plaintiff and the Delhi Cotton Mills Company, Limited, defendant, and on the 21st April of that year, the Chief Court, on appeal, made a money decree in favour of the Bank for a sum of over Rs. 97,000 and interest. On the 25 June in the same year, the premises and mills of the Cotton Mills Company were purchased, as a going concern, by the present plaintiff, at public auction, for a sum very much larger than the amount of the Bank's decree. On the 15 August in the same year, the Bank, in execution of their decree, obtained an attachment of the premises purchased by the plaintiff, and possession was taken under that attachment. In the same mon August, the present plaintiff filed a petition in the District Court alleging that the attachment was wrongful, and that he was compelled to pay the balance due under the Bank's decree. He paid into Court accordingly and thus released the property from the attachment. On the following day the now plaintiff filed a plaint against the Bank in the District Court, in which plaint he asked for two things-first for a decree for the amount which he had paid to release the property from attachment, and secondly for damages on the ground of the illegality of the attachment.

(3.) It is unnecessary to follow in detail the proceedings in the case. It is enough to say that on the 18 November, 1902, the District Court made an order deciding that the principal claim of the plaintiff, namely that relating to the sum paid to release the attachment was unsustainable in law. The learned Judge thus expressed himself: I therefore rule that the payment was entirely voluntary, and for plain, tiff's own interests, and that his remedy is under Secs.69 and 70 of the Contract Act against the Delhi Cotton Mills and I dismiss the case for recovery with costs. The case will proceed on the question of damages for illegal attachment.