Multan Chand Kanyalal vs Bank of Madras

In this case the Subordinate Judge finds that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 42 and the suit is therefore within time. We

must, however, accede to the argument on behalf of the Appellants that the Article applicable is Article 29 and that the suit was therefore barred

by limitation. Here the warrant of attachment was executed as sanctioned by the order of the Court by affixing the Court seal to the outer door of

the warehouse without breaking open the door and taking physical possession of the jaggery inside the warehouse. In our opinion the property was

attached as property in the possession of the Defendants and the attachment was effected by affixing the seal of the Court to the outer door. This,

in effect, was actual seizure within the meaning of Section 269, Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the seal being affixed the jiggery passed into the

custody of the Court and the suit having been brought more than one year after the date of seizure and there having been no fraudulent

concealment of the fact of seizure from the knowledge of the Bank the claim, as already stated, is barred under Article 29. The appeals are,

therefore, allowed with costs and, reversing the decree of the lower Court, we dismiss the suit with costs.