PANDIRI VEERANNA Vs. MANDAVILLI SUBBA ROW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff s case might be summarised thus:-- (a) the 1st defendant on the 19th January 1905 wrongfully attached in execution of his decree against one B.V. Narasimham, certain timber logs belonging to the plaintiff, (b) the 2nd defendant brought O.S. No. 8 of 1905 against that same debtor B.V. Narasimham, got an order for attachment before judgment of these same logs belonging to the present plaintiff and had them attached by a prohibitory order directed against the Village Munsif the 3rd defendant, with whom the logs had been left in pursuance of the first attachment made at the instance of the 1st defendant. (c) Though the attachments were all released soon after (on 8th March 1905 and 24th January 1905), the 1st defendant brought a suit contesting the orders of release passed in the plaintiff s favour and his suit was finally disposed of on appeal in plaintiff s favour only in December 1907. (d) Though the cause of action first accrued when the attachments were made in January 1905, the cause of action must be deemed to have continued till December 1907, when, in the suit brought by the 1st defendant, it was finally decided that the logs belonged to the plaintiff and not to the 1st and 2nd defendant s debtor B.V. Narasimham.

(2.) The present suit was brought in January 1908, within three years of the attachment but more than two years after the properties were released both from the attachments by seizure at the instance of the 1st defendant and from the attachment by prohibitory order at the instance of the 2nd defendant.

(3.) The learned District Judge at the end of paragraph 5 of his judgment says,--"The attachment was made at the instance of the 1st defendant and by the instrumentality of the 2nd defendant and his clerk. It was illegal both in its inception and execution and what followed afterwards was a natural consequence." The District Judge thus correctly apprehended the suit as a suit for compen-sation for loss caused by the illegal attachment effected by the defendants 1 and 2.