JUDGMENT 1. It is argued for the; Appellant that the proper remedy is by a suit for damages under Section 49 of Act VIII of 1865. That course is, no doubt, open to a person aggrieved by an excessive distress. But we do not think that it is his only remedy. 2. We think that an excessive distress which is forbidden by Section 24 is a ground on which an appeal against a distrait may be filed under Section 18 of the Act, and if the distress is proved to be excessive the Collector may allow the appeal and set aside the distrait as the District Judge has done in this case. 3. We have no doubt that the District Judge was right in finding that the distress was, in fact, excessive. 4. We dismiss the second appeals, with costs in Second Appeal No. 71 of 1902.