The only question raised in this appeal on behalf of the Defendant is one of limitation. It appears that a certain putni taluk belonged to one Ram Sundar and some other persons. They sold it to the Plaintiffs, and while the putni was in the hands of the Plaintiffs, it was sold for rent in 1895, under the provisions of Reg. VIII of 1819, the result being that, after payment of the rent due to the zemindar, a certain amount of money was left to the hands of the Collector to the credit of the owner of the putni, Subsequent thereto the present Defend ant in execution of a decree that he had against the said Ram Sundar attached the surplus sale-proceeds, the attachment being taken out on the 18th of January 1896: and the money thus attached was withdrawn by the Defendant on the 17th of February 1896. Thereupon, the present suit was instituted on the 6th of May 1898 for recovery of the money in question from the Defendant, upon the ground that the Plaintiff was the rightful owner of the putni, and not Ram Sundar, upon the date when the sale took place, and therefore the Defendant had no right to withdraw the surplus sale-proceeds.
The Court below has decreed the Plaintiff's suit.
The ground that has been urged on behalf of the Defendant by the learned vakil is that the case is governed by Art. 29 of the Second Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the suit not having been brought within one year from the date, when the attachment was taken out by the Defendant, it is barred by limitation. Art. 29 of the Second Schedule runs thus:—“For compensation for wrongful seizure of moveable property under legal process, one year from the date of the seizure.”
The article contemplates wrongful seizure, the seizure of moveable property under legal process, and that by reason of such wrongful seizure a person has been damnified. The Plaintiffs, in the present case, do not say that they have sustained any injury by reason of the attachment, nor do they claim any compensation on that account. What they say is that the money taken by the Defendant rightfully belongs to them, and they therefore seek to recover it as having been wrongfully taken from the Collectorate. It seems to us that Art. 29 referred to by the learned vakil contemplates a very different class of cases from the case with which we are concerned. He has however called our attention to a case of Jagjivan Javherdas v. Gulam Jilani Choudhury(1); but we regret we are unable to follow it. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs—vakils' fee Rs. 50.
S.C.S
Appeal dismissed.