Article 29 of the Limitation Act covers compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process, and the period of limitation begins from the actual date of the seizure.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff firm against the defendant firm claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages which the plaintiffs alleged they sustained by reason of the defendants having wrongfully attached before judgment the properties in the defendant firm.

2. The plaintiffs and the defendants were merchants who were carrying on business in partnership. The plaintiffs were carrying on business at Bellary and the defendants were carrying on business at Gadag. It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bellary District Court for winding up the business and for taking accounts. The defendants brought a suit against the plaintiffs and two other firms in the Court of the 1st Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar for a breach of contract claiming Rs. three lakhs twelve thousand odd. The defendants filed an affidavit on the 30th of March, 1920, and applied for attachment before judgment of certain properties of the plaintiffs in Belary and obtained a conditional order. The Subordinate Tudge after hearing the parties confirmed the attachment before judgment on the 21st of April, 1920, and ordered the plaintiffs to give security on failure of which the attachment was to continue. It is alleged in the plaint that both in getting this order and in carrying out the attachment the defendants were guilty of various acts of misconduct. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court of Bombay against the order of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge holding that the defendants did not establish any proper grounds for the attachment before judgment. The judgment of the Bombay High Court is reported in Sennaji Kapur Chand v. Pannaji Devichand (1921) I.L.R. 46 B. 431.

3. The defendants filed a written statement stating that they acted bona fide They denied that in carrying out the attachment they acted in any illegal manner as alleged in the plaint. They denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages and stated that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs did not prove the various acts of misconduct alleged in the plaint, but he was of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages on the ground that the attachment was not obtained bona fide. He observed :

In the result I find that the attachment made from the 10th to 12th April, 1920, was malicious in the sense that it was sought not under an apprehension that the plaintiffs were closing the shop to defeat the debt due to the defendants but in order that it may be easy for the defendants to Ralisp their moneys in case they obtained a decree

5. As regards damages, he awarded Rs. 3,000 damages and directed the parties to pay and receive proportionate costs. As regards limitation, the point was considered by the District Judge before the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge on the authority of Manavikraman v Avisilan Koya (1895) I.L.R. 19 M 80 6M.L.J. 11 was of opinion that, where the moveables of the defendants were attached before judgment, the seizure cannot be regarded as wrongful and that Art 29 did not apply The District Judge applied Article 49 and as the date of the seizure was the 9th of April, 1920, i.e, within three years before the suit he held that the suit was in time The Subordinate Judge said that that ruling concluded the matter but he also added that as it as necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that the prior proceedings terminated in their favour, limitation began to run from that date, that the attachment was a continuing wrong and that Section 23 of the Limitation Act would apply. Hence the appeal.

6. In appeal, it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and that the Judge was wrong in holding on the facts that the attachment before judgment was obtained maliciously and without reasonable cause and that in any event the damages are excessive

7.