Jurisdiction under Cattle-Trespass law and specific pleading of loss are required before compensation can be sustained.

Section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 confines complaints to the District Magistrate or an authorised Magistrate, so action taken by an unauthorised Magistrate is without jurisdiction and legally void. The text also states that compensation for loss caused by seizure of cattle cannot be sustained on a bare general prayer: the particular heads of loss must be specifically pleaded and proved so the opposite party can meet them. On that basis, the proceedings before the Honorary Magistrate were set aside and the matter was remitted for consideration by a competent Magistrate, with liberty to adduce fresh evidence if the complaint lies before such authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Magistrate who entertained the complaint had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 to try the matter and award compensation; (ii) whether compensation for loss caused by seizure of cattle could be awarded without specific pleading and proof of the several heads of loss.

Issue (i): whether the Magistrate who entertained the complaint had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 to try the matter and award compensation.

Analysis: Section 20 restricts complaints to the Magistrate of the District or to a Magistrate authorised to receive and try such charges without reference to the District Magistrate. On the facts, the order made by an incompetent Magistrate was held to be illegal and void. The defect was treated as not curable under the provisions relied upon.

Conclusion: The complaint could be entertained only by a competent Magistrate under section 20, and the order made by the Honorary Magistrate was invalid.

Issue (ii): whether compensation for loss caused by seizure of cattle could be awarded without specific pleading and proof of the several heads of loss.

Analysis: The claim for compensation was required to disclose the particular heads of loss, or at least those heads had to be specifically indicated and proved during the hearing so that the opposite party could meet them. A bare general prayer was held insufficient where neither pleading nor evidence established the several items of loss.

Conclusion: Compensation could not be sustained on the material before the Magistrate because the relevant heads of loss were neither specifically pleaded nor proved.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings before the Honorary Magistrate were set aside and the matter was sent back for consideration by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the question of competence, with liberty for fresh evidence if the complaint lay before a competent Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confines complaints to a specified class of Magistrates, action by an unauthorised Magistrate is without jurisdiction; and a claim for compensation for particular losses must be specifically pleaded and proved so the opposite party has a fair opportunity to answer it.

---