Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
[1] I think Article 29, Lim. Act is not applicable. The deed of hypothecation does not give the appellant any right to be in possession of the cattle attached. The seizure cannot be said to be wrongful as all that the appellant is entitled to is to have the sale subject to his hypothecation. Niadar Singh v. Ganga Dai [1916] 38 All. 676, is in point. As pointed out there can only be a wrongful seizure when the property was in the possession of the person. It may be that constructive possession will do. But when there is no right to possession there can be no wrongful seizure. Damaraju Narasimha Row v. Gangaram [1908] 4 M.L.T. 271, was a case of possession. I set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the result. Court-fees will be refunded.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
(nagari) Subbanna v. (karapakula) Naranayya
(nagari) Subbanna v. (karapakula) Naranayya
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 10-12-1929
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties -------
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KUMARASWAMI SASTRI
Eq Citations
- 123 IND. CAS. 362
- AIR 1930 MAD 349
- LQ/MadHC/1929/414
Head Note
Summary of Headnote(s) Limitation Act, 1908 — S. 29 — Wrongful seizure — Hypothecated cattle — Hypothecation deed did not give appellant any right to be in possession of cattle attached — Hence, held, seizure could not be said to be wrongful — Decree of District Judge set aside and matter remanded for disposal on merits — Damaraju Narasimha Row v. Gangaram, AIR 1908 Mad 271 and Niadar Singh v. Ganga Dai, AIR 1916 All 676, referred to (Para 12)
