Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages brought against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Malabar and two officers of the Madras Government. Defendant 1 was the State of Madras, defendant 2 the Grain Purchasing Inspector, Tellicherry, and defendant 3 the Taluk Supply Officer, Tellicherry. Plaintiff was a cultivator owning 26 acres 70 cents of single crop wet land in Vadakkumbad Amsom and 60 cents of wet land in Eranholi Amsam. From the single crop wet land he harvested 554 paras of paddy in September-October 1949 i.e., the Kanni crop of 11?5.On 17-11-1949 he received a notice from the Village Menon of Vadakkumpad to deliver 160 paras of paddy to the procurement authorities under the Madras Foodgrains Procurement Regulation.1947 and Malabar Foodgrains Procurement Regulation.1947. This demand was made on the basis that from the paddy harvested by him plaintiff was entitled to keep only the paddy necessary for the next cultivation and the paddy required for domestic consumption till 16-1-1950. Upon receipt of the notice, the plaintiff gave a petition (Ext. BI) to defendant 3, the Taluk Supply Officer, stating that, as he had only 60 cents of land to be cultivated for the Makaram crop of 1125, he might be allowed to deduct from the Kanni crop of the Vadakkumpad lands all the paddy necessary for his domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126 also and that if such deduction was allowed there would be no balance at all available with him for delivery to the procurement officers. Defendant 3 sent this petition to defendant 2, the Grain Purchasing Inspector, for investigation and report, and after taking a statement from the plaintiff, defendant 2 reported that the plaintiff should be directed to deliver 225 paras of paddy. No allowance was given in this report for the domestic consumption of the plaintiff after 16-1-1950. All these happened on 17-11-1949. On the next day, the plaintiff sent a petition (Ext. A3) to the District Supplies Officer, Kozhikode appealing against the decisions of defendants 2 and 3 and praying that he might be allowed to deduct from the stock with him the paddy necessary for his domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126 and also stating that if the decision of the District Supplies Officer was also against him he would surrender the entire stock of paddy available with him. On 19-11-1949 defendant 2 forcibly entered into the plaintiff's house with police assistance, which he requisitioned, and seized and removed from there 225 paras of paddy. The suit was brought for damages in respect of this wrongful entry and seizure, and the total claim for damages made by the plaintiff was Rs. 4,450/- including the price of paddy removed and damages for illegal entry, mental pain, agony, loss of reputation, etc. Defendant 3 was sought to be made liable on the ground that defendant 2 had acted under his orders. All the defendants entered appearance in the court below and contested the suit, contending that there was no contravention of law on the part of defendant 2 and the paddy had been lawfully seized and that defendant 2 had acted bonafide, and so, in any case, the plaintiff was not entitled to get damages. Defendant 1 contended further that, if defendants 2 and 3 had acted malafide, defendant 1 was not liable for damages in respect of their acts. The court below found that the entry into the plaintiff's house and the seizure of the paddy were not illegal and that defendants 2 and 3 had acted in good faith and were protected by S.16 (1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and dismissed the suit in toto. It also recorded a finding that, even if the defendants were liable for damages, plaintiff was entitled to get only Rs. 500/- by way of damages. Plaintiff has filed the appeal from the decree dismissing the suit, confining his claim to damages, however, only to the amount of Rs. 500/-which alone has been found by the lower court as awardable to the plaintiff in case he, is entitled to win in the suit. 2. We may say at once that the claim against defendant 1 is unsustainable, for the State cannot be held liable for the wrongful acts committed malafide by its servants. 3. So far as defendant 2 is concerned, the plaintiff has got a good case. It is conceded that from the stock of paddy harvested in September-October 1949, i.e., the Kanni crop of 1125, the plaintiff was entitled to retain with him the paddy required for the next cultivation and also for his domestic consumption till the next crop and that he was liable to deliver to the procurement officers only the balance. It is conceded that from the stock of paddy harvested in September-October 1949, i.e., the Kanni crop of 1125, the plaintiff was entitled to retain with him the paddy required for the next cultivation and also for his domestic consumption till the next crop and that he was liable to deliver to the procurement officers only the balance. As the plaintiff had only 60 cents of land available for cultivation for the Makaram crop he was entitled to keep from the paddy harvested in September-October 1949 such paddy as was necessary for the cultivation of the 26 acres 70 cents of single crop land for the Kanni crop of 1126 and for his domestic consumption till the taking of that crop. In estimating this requirement the paddy which he would get from the 60 cents of land in Eranholi Amsam at the Makaram harvest of 1125 also had of course to be taken into consideration. The plaintiff's case is that the stock of paddy available with him in September-October 1949 was insufficient for the above requirements, and so, he was entitled to keep the entire stock with him and was not liable to deliver any portion of it to the procurement officers. The defendants' contentions were two-fold. One was that the plaintiff was entitled to retain for domestic consumption only such paddy as was required till the Makaram crop of 1125 and not till the Kanni crop of 1126. According to them, the Makaram crop of 1125 being the next crop to the Kanni crop of 1125 plaintiff could not claim paddy for domestic consumption till the Kanni crop of 1126. Their second contention was that the plaintiff was entitled to retain paddy only for the consumption of himself and his wife and could not claim deductions for the other persons in respect of whom also he had asked for deduction. 4. It is not disputed that, if the plaintiff had no land for cultivation for the Makaram crop of 1125, he would be entitled to retain paddy sufficient for his requirements till the taking of the Kanni crop of 1126. As the extent of the land available for cultivation for the Makaram crop of 1125 was negligible, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled, under law, to retain paddy sufficient to meet his requirements till the taking of the Kanni crop of 1126. As the extent of the land available for cultivation for the Makaram crop of 1125 was negligible, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled, under law, to retain paddy sufficient to meet his requirements till the taking of the Kanni crop of 1126. There is no substance in the second contention of the defendants either. The procurement officers had given an allowance to the plaintiff to meet his requirements till 16-1-1950. In making this allowance they had taken into account not merely the paddy required for the domestic consumption of the plaintiff and his wife but the requirements for the domestic consumption of his other relatives who where dependant on him. We fail to see how a distinction can be drawn in this matter for the period before 16-1-1950 and the period after 16-1-1950. If the plaintiff was entitled to claim allowance for his relatives dependant upon him for the period before 16-1-1950 he was certainly entitled to get allowance for their requirements for the period after 16-1-1950 also. In this connection it is also significant to note that the records produced in the case show that in the previous years plaintiff was given allowance for domestic consumption not merely for himself and his wife but also for all his relatives dependant upon him. There is no evidence that these relatives had ceased to be dependant upon the plaintiff after 16-1-1950. In these circumstances, we are constrained to differ from the finding of the lower court and to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to retain with him the stock of paddy which was seized by defendant 2 on 19-11-1949 and that the seizure was wrongful. 5. The next question is whether defendant 2 had acted bonafide. According to defendant 2, since defendant 3 had rejected the plaintiff's claim to retain the paddy, his act in seizing the stock was a bonafide one. But before defendant 2 came to the plaintiff's house to seize the paddy plaintiff had appealed to the District Supplies Officer against defendant 3's decision, and according to the plaintiff, when defendant 2 came to his house he gave a copy of the appeal petition to defendant 2 and also requested him to stay his hands till the disposal of the appeal by the District Supplies Officer. Defendant 2 denies that the plaintiff had given him a copy of the petition sent to the District Supplies Officer or apprised him of the fact that such a petition had been sent. It is, however, admitted by defendant 2 that the plaintiff had given him Ext. B6 when he went to his house to seize the paddy. There is now a correction in the first line of Ext. B6 regarding the person to whom the petition was addressed. Without that correction it would appear to be a copy of the petition which the plaintiff had sent to the District Supplies Officer on 18-11-1949. The correction has been made in a hand different from the handwriting in which the rest of Ext. B6 is, and would appear to have been a subsequent interpolation. It is highly improbable that the plaintiff, who had sent the petition to the District Supplies Officer on 18-11-1949 would have failed to brine it to the notice of defendant 2 when he went to his house on the next day for forcibly seizing the paddy from him. Further, Pw. 3, who is a responsible officer of the Government, swears that he was present in the plaintiff's house at the time defendant 2 went there and that the plaintiff had then given a copy of the petition to defendant 2. In view of the fact that the only difference between the petition which the plaintiff has given to the District Supplies Officer and Ext. B6 is as to the address of the person to whom that petition was addressed we have absolutely no doubt of the truth of Pw. 3's evidence. We are therefore satisfied that, on 19-11-1949, the plaintiff had apprised defendant 2 of his appeal to the District Supplies Officer and requested him to stay his hands till the orders of the District Supplies Officer were received. The very denial of this fact by defendant 2 shows that he was not acting bonafide when he seized the plaintiff's stock of paddy and that he was then actuated by the desire to seize and dispose of the plaintiff's stock before the appeal could be disposed of by the District Supplies Officer. The very denial of this fact by defendant 2 shows that he was not acting bonafide when he seized the plaintiff's stock of paddy and that he was then actuated by the desire to seize and dispose of the plaintiff's stock before the appeal could be disposed of by the District Supplies Officer. There is no suggestion that the plaintiff would have wrongly disposed of the paddy if it had not been seized from him on 19-11-1949 and the decision of the District Supplies Officer had gone against him. The plaintiff had given a specific undertaking that, if the decision of the District Supplies Officer was not favourable to him, he would deliver the entire stock of paddy as per that decision. Defendant 2 was not therefore justified in entering the plaintiff's house and seizing the paddy from him on 19-11-1949. We are satisfied -that his conduct in entering the house and seizing the paddy was mala-fide, and we hold that he is liable in damages to the plaintiff. 6. So far as defendant 3 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to show that be was aware of the plaintiff's appeal to the District Supplies Officer or that he had actually issued any instruction to defendant 2 to forcibly enter the plaintiff's house and seize the paddy. We hold therefore that he is not liable for the plaintiff's claim. 7. In the result, plaintiff is given a decree to recover as damages Rs. 500/-, from defendant 2, and interest thereon at 6 per cent per year from the date of this decree. He is also allowed to recover from defendant 2 proportionate costs in the lower court and interest thereon at 6 per cent per year. The suit is dismissed without costs so far as defendants 1 and 3 are concerned. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, and the plaintiff will recover his costs in this court from defendant 2. Defendants 1 and 3 will bear their costs in this court also.