DAYA RAM Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit giving rise to the present application for revision was instituted by the applicant, Daya Ram, for recovery of Rs. 200 as compensation from the Secretary of State. The facts which led to the suit are these: A certain sum of money was advanced by the Government to two persons, Ram Nazar and Jagannath, under Section 4, Agriculturists Loans Act (Act 12 of 1884). This kind of loan is popularly known as a takavi advance, and its character has been described in the Act as a loan granted to owners and occupiers of arable land for the relief of distress, the purchase of seed or cattle, or for any other purpose connected with agricultural objects.

(2.) The loan was not repaid either by Ramnazar or Jagannath. Ramnazar having died, the revenue authorities, in pursuance of the provision of Section 5 of the Act attached a she-buffalo in the possession of Daya Ram on the ground that the latter was the heir of Ramnazar and the she-buffalo was the property of the deceased. Dayaram objected to the attachment on the ground that he was not the heir of Ramnazar, and that the she-buffalo belonged to him; but his petition of objection was summarily dismissed by the Collector. Thereupon Dayaram paid under protest in writing duly signed by him Rs. 76-12-11 being the amount of the takavi demand and Rs. 4 the fees for attachment, in all Rs. 80-12-11 and procured the release of the she-buffalo. During the intervening period, i.e., between the date of the attachment and removal of the buffalo from the possession of Dayaram and the date of its release, the calf of the buffalo died in consequence of its separation from its mother. Then the present action was commenced for a refund of Rs. 80-12-11 with interest and for recovery of damages caused by the death of the buffalo calf and for the price of the milk of which the plaintiff was deprived on account of the unlawful attachment of the she-buffalo. Rs. 200 were claimed in all.

(3.) The suit was resisted on the ground that Daya Ram was the heir of Ramnazar and in possession of his estate, that the buffalo was rightly attached, and that the suit was barred by Section 233(m), Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901).