JUDGMENT - 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff against ten defendants for recovery of a sum of the Rs. 3, 455-1-0 in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the lasagaon Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lalasgaon Defendants Nos 1 and 2 were the constituents of the Bank should make advances to defendants Nos 1 and 2 on the security of agricultural produce such as groun dnuts, jaggery. Tobacco etc. This agreements took place on 20th November 1952. The plaintiff was to make advances to defendants Nos 1 and 2 up to sixty at Rs. 5,000 certain advances were made the basis on this agreement. On 16th November 1953 the agreement was renewed and was to remain in force till 30th September 1954. In about December 1953 defendants No.1, which is the firm of which defendants No.2 is partner fir owner of the dues Defendants Nos 1 and 2 had kept certain packages tobacco in their own go down and handed over the key of he same to the plaintiff, thus giving the property in possession of the plaintiff. On 23rd August 1954 the Defendants Nos 1 and 2 were indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 3,181. On 16th December 1952 the Income -tax Officer, Nasik issued a certificate (Exhibit 68) un der S. 46 (2 of the Income - tax Act, 1922 and forwarded the same to the collector. Nasik He warded wrote a letter on 11th December 1953 (Exhibit 69) to the collector calling upon the latter to the recovering by attachment of and sale of the stock of tobacco or by the attachment and sale of the open plot belonging to the defendant Nos 1and 2. As already stated, on 23rd august 1954 the liability of defendants Nos 1 and 2 toward the plaintiff would have worked out to sum of Rs. 3, 181 with have worked out to sum of the fu ture interest. At the time ninety - seven packages of tobacco were in plaintiff custody. On 24th December 1953 the collector, Nasik, forwarded the letter the Mamlatdar, niphad, for taking necessary action. On 23rd August 1954 the Circle Officer went of the godown of the plaintiff made valuation of the packages of the tobacco kept therein under a pachnama and sought to attach the same. The plaintiff gave a writing (Exhibit 52) protesting against the proposed attachment. The circle Officers of without giving heed to the protest proceeded to attach the goods. He kept the good in the over same godown ,locked it and hand over the key to the police patil of the village. The same day the made a repair (Exhibit 75) of whether the had done, to the Mamlatdar. In this report, the Circle Officer stated.

"In accordance with the orders given by the your (Mamlatdar) personally, the tobacco had been attached and kept in the same godown handing over possession to the police patil."

It may be mentioned at this state that the letter written by the Mamlatdar to he Circle Officer has not been placed on the record on behalf of the dependents. The circle Officer in his reports of this dues. He forwarded the protest of the were letters of the plaintiff on 24th August 1954 that the goods were attached in pursuances of the orders of the superior officers. It appease that on 29 th or 30th September 1954 there was heavy rains and the roof of the godown where the goods were stocked leaked heavily and as a result of the leakage the tobacco was damaged. On 1st October 1954 the collector sent a telegram to the Mamlatdar staying that the good be returned to the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the telegram to has not placed on the record of the case, nor has any evidences has led on behalf of the defendants to shows as to why the collector thought of retaining the goods the plaintiff on this particular day. It appears to have been assumed in the courts below that this action was taken by the collectors because the letters realized there the attachment was not regulate. In the absence of evidence on the point, it is difficult to say whether this action was taken the collector on account of reallocation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document