MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MAINPURI Vs. AJUDHIA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the Municipal Board of Mainpuri who was defendant 1 in the Court below. The plaintiff, Ajudhia Prasad, brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,500, which he claimed as damages from the two defendants. The second defendant was the Secretary of State for India in Council. The allegations contained in the plaint were that the plaintiff was an advocate practising at Agra, that on 23 March 1929, when the plaintiff was working at his place with his clients the plaintiff's horse and carriage were distrained by the defendants when as a matter of fact nothing was due from the plaintiff, and as a result of this wrongful action the plaintiff suffered damages. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had served a notice claiming Rs. 5,250 as the amount of damages, but the plaintiff was advised to claim in the suit the moderate sum of Rs. 1,500 only as compensation for the wrongful distraint. None of the defendants admitted their liability, although they conceded that the horse and carriage of the plaintiff were wrongfully attached. The Municipal Board of Mainpuri alleged that it was through the negligence of either the Collector of Agra or the Collector of Mainpuri that the attachment was made of the plaintiff's property.

(2.) The facts appear to be that certain projection dues were due from one Khiali Ram minor. The plaintiff had married the sister of Khiali Ram, and on the date of the attachment, Khiali Ram was living with Pandit Ajudhia Prasad at Agra. The letter that was sent by the Municipal Board of Mainpuri to the District Magistrate of Mainpuri asking the latter to take action for the recovery of the dues was undoubtedly a misleading letter. It was said that the dues were to be realised from Pandit Ajudhia Prasad, Vakil, Mohalla Gurki Mandi, Agra guardian of Khiali Ram minor. The letter that was sent by the District Magistrate of Mainpuri to the District Magistrate of Agra, was to the effect that distress by seizure of movable property belonging to the said Pandit Ajudhia Prasad should be made for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 109-11-0. The Amin went to the spot and in spite of protest made by Pandit Ajudhia Prasad attached the latter's horse and carriage. Some correspondence followed between the plaintiff and the Municipal Board of Mainpuri, but the plaintiff had to serve a notice and had subsequently to file the present suit.

(3.) The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit for nominal damages in the sum of Rs. 5 against defendant 1. His suit was dismissed against defendant 2, and the costs of the second defendant were directed to be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant 1 were ordered to pay their own costs.