JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether Art. 28 or Art. 2 of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act applies to the suit instituted by the Plaintiffs for recovery of compensation. The landlord upon an application being made to the Court under the Bengal Tenancy Act, took out distraint against the crops belonging to the Plaintiffs which he was not justified in doing. Thereupon they instituted the present suit for compensation for the illegal seizure of their crops, and the Court below has held that the suit having been brought within one year of the illegal seizure complained against it is within time. 2. We think that the view adopted by the Court below is right, and that Art. 2 of the Limitation Act which the learned vakil for the Appellant has invoked on his behalf, does not apply to the circumstances of the case. 3. We are of opinion that Art. 28 applies. That article, no doubt, uses the expression "distress," but we have no doubt that it uses expression in the same sense as the word "distraint" but even supposing Art. 28 does not apply, we think the next Art. 29 may well apply; for the landlord wrongfully seized moveable property under a legal process and the Plaintiffs are entitled to bring a suit for such wrongful seizure within one year of such seizure. In this view of the matter we dismiss this appeal with costs.