Yamuna Bai Rani Sahiba vs Solayya Kavundan

As to the points raised by the first issue, it was not taken in the lower Appellate Court and whether or not the order by the Revenue officer is

conclusive as to the legality of the distraint, there is certainly evidence to show that it was illegal.

On the question of limitation we have to consider whether the cause of action arose within six months prior to the date of the institution of the

suit. What happened was that the seizure was effected in May 1896, but the effects remained in the defendant''s possession until a later date within

the six months.

We are of opinion that the term cause of action used in Section 78 of the Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865) must be taken to be used in the

ordinary sense, for the intention was to preserve the ordinary rights of action, subject only to the two provisos. Assuming that the detention is an

act professedly done under the authority of the Act so as to make Section 78 of the Act applicable, we think that the detention was a continuing

wrong and that therefore the suit was not barred by that section. It was certainly not barred by the provision of the general law of limitation, for

according to the Limitation Act (XV of 1877), a period of one year calculated from the date of the distress is allowed and that period had not

elapsed when the suit was filed. We dismiss the appeal with costs.