THIRUVARIAMUTHU PILLAI Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHENCOTTAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of an action in tort filed by the owner of a dog against a Municipal Corporation which killed the dog through its servant in purported exercise of its statutory power.

(2.) B.T. Pillai, a resident of Ariyanalloor street in Shencottah, owned a young dog of Fox Terrier species worth about Rs. 50. On 20-12-1954 the dog was out on the street accompanied by a servant of B.T. Pillai. One of the employees of the Municipal Council of Shencottah killed it. B.T. Pillai complained to the Municipal Council that his dog was killed by its employee unlawfully in spite of warning given to the employee by his own servant not to kill it. B.T. Pillai submitted in that complaint that the killing of his dog was illegal, high handed and unjustifiable, that the incident caused him not merely financial loss but also mental anguish and that unless he was given redress adequately by the Municipality he would be constrained to sue it in a Court of law for damages.

(3.) To this the Municipality sent a reply stating that one of its servants, Mookan Nayakar was engaged in killing stray dogs found within the Municipal limits of Shencottah and that several stray dogs were killed on 20-12-1954, and that one such stray dog was killed at a spot 20' away from the residence of B.T. Pillai. The reply further stated that the dog so killed was an old dog affected with serious skin disease, and that the dog was a source of danger to the residents of the town. The Municipality denied that the dog was killed deliberately without heeding the warning given by the servant of B.T. Pillai. Finally the Municipality justified its action under the provisions of S.254 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, XXIII of 1116.