1964 (7) TMI 50 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the attachment procedure.
2. Classification of the attached property as movable or immovable.
3. Liability of the State Government for the actions of its servants.
4. Suit against government officials in their official capacity.
5. Proper party to be sued for the recovery of arrears of Income Tax.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Attachment Procedure:
The plaintiff contended that the procedure followed by the Tahsildar in locking the factory was contrary to law. The attachment of the boiler engine and decorticator, the engine, factory building, and the godowns of the factory by the Tahsildar was challenged as being illegal. The court examined the manner of attachment as per Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-5, which indicated that the attachment was effected under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, meant for movable property. The court concluded that the procedure adopted was not in accordance with S. 27, which is required for immovable property, thereby rendering the attachment illegal.

2. Classification of the Attached Property as Movable or Immovable:
The court analyzed the definitions of immovable and movable property as per various statutes, including the Madras General Clauses Act, the Transfer of Property Act, and the Indian Registration Act. It was determined that machinery embedded in the earth for the beneficial enjoyment of the building, such as the boiler engine and decorticator, constitutes immovable property. The court referenced the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim vs. Northern Circars Fibre Trading Co., Cocanada, which established that machinery embedded in the earth for the beneficial use of the building is immovable property. Consequently, the attachment was deemed illegal as the procedure for movable property was incorrectly applied to immovable property.

3. Liability of the State Government for the Actions of its Servants:
The court held that the Government cannot be made liable for the torts committed by its servants in the exercise of sovereign powers. The court referenced various cases, including Gurucharan Kaur v. Province of Madras, which established that the Government is not liable for wrongful acts done by its servants in the discharge of statutory duties unless expressly authorized or ratified by the Government. The court concluded that the Government, whether State or Central, cannot be held liable for the tort committed by the Tahsildar in effecting the illegal attachment.

4. Suit against Government Officials in their Official Capacity:
The court discussed that a suit against government officials in their official capacity is misconceived unless the official is a corporation sole, which was not the case here. The court referenced decisions like Raleigh v. Goschen and Bainbridge v. Postmaster General, which established that officials cannot be sued in their official capacity for wrongful acts unless they are substantially the acts of the head of the department. Therefore, the suit against the Collector and the Tahsildar in their official capacity was dismissed.

5. Proper Party to be Sued for the Recovery of Arrears of Income Tax:
The court noted that the arrears of Income Tax were due to the Central Government, and the State Government acted only as its agent. Consequently, the proper party to be sued should have been the Central Government. This contention was supported by decisions in Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao v. Collector of Madras and Abanindra Kumar v. A. K. Biswas. However, given the conclusions on other issues, the court did not find it necessary to decide this point definitively.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the attachment was illegal, the property was immovable, and the State Government could not be held liable for the torts committed by its servants in the exercise of sovereign powers. The suit against the officials in their official capacity was also dismissed. The Government was awarded costs only in the trial court, not in the appeal.