1956 (9) TMI 68 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the attachment of the decree in Certificate Case No. 1-M of 1933-34.
2. Legality of the execution of the decree by the Secretary of State.
3. Whether the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the plaintiffs was voluntary or under compulsion.
4. Liability of the Secretary of State for damages due to alleged unlawful detention of money.
5. Applicability of the principle of remoteness of damages.
6. Whether the plea of tort was appropriately raised and considered.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Attachment of the Decree:
The attachment of the decree in Certificate Case No. 1-M of 1933-34 was unlawful as the decree, at the relevant time, was the property of Keshardeo Chamaria, not the certificate debtor, as affirmed by the court's decision in Title Suit No. 111 of 1934 and F.A. No. 24 of 1937.

2. Legality of the Execution of the Decree:
The execution of the decree by the Secretary of State was illegal because it was based on an unlawful attachment. The Secretary of State had no right to execute the decree. However, the execution was ordered only after notice to the plaintiffs, and there was no fraud or willful misrepresentation by the Secretary of State.

3. Whether the Payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the Plaintiffs was Voluntary or Under Compulsion:
The payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the plaintiffs was deemed voluntary. The judgment-debtors made the payment to get rid of the decree by a lesser amount than what was recoverable under it in execution. Notices had been directed to be issued to them before the execution, giving them ample opportunity to object, which they did not utilize.

4. Liability of the Secretary of State for Damages Due to Alleged Unlawful Detention of Money:
The Secretary of State was not liable for damages due to the alleged unlawful detention of money. The payment was voluntary, and no demand for the return of the money was made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs consistently supported the Secretary of State's action in retaining the money against the assignee decree-holder Keshardeo.

5. Applicability of the Principle of Remoteness of Damages:
The damages claimed by the plaintiffs were too remote to fix the Secretary of State with any liability. The payment was made before an order of execution had been issued, and the execution was based on a judicial order passed after notice to the plaintiffs.

6. Whether the Plea of Tort was Appropriately Raised and Considered:
The plea of tort was not sufficiently indicated in the pleadings before the court and required consideration of matters beyond mere matters of law. The learned Subordinate Judge should not have allowed this plea to be raised.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court concluded that the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- was voluntary, and the Secretary of State was not liable for any damages. The plea of tort was not appropriately raised, and the claim for damages was too remote. The judgment was affirmed by both P.N. Mookerjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ.