JUDGMENT 1. We are unable to follow the District Judge when (sic)e says that this attachment was not a proceeding taken under (sic)lour of the Act (Madras Act VIII of 1865). The Defendants (sic)e landlords who, had they tendered a proper patta, would have been entitled to distrain under the Act. The fact that the patta tendered was improper does not cause the proceeding taken by them under the provisions of the Act to bo a proceeding not taken under colour of the Act. We are also unable to agree with the District Judge that the suit was not for damages (Pamu Sanyasi v. Zamindar of Jayapur (I.L.R Mad.540). 2. Whether a suit is for the return of specific moveable property or for damages is a question which must depend upon the averments and frame of the plaint in each case. 3. In this case the property attached was grain not capable of identification and that is a circumstance which goes far to show that the suit is not for the return of specific property, whilst the nature of the articles to which Raja Goundan v. Rangaya Goundan I.L.R., 20 Mad., 449 refers was such as to show that the proper conclusion was that that suit was for the return of specific property. 4. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Head Assistant Collector with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.