RANGANAGULU Vs. MULLACKAL DEVASWAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are told that there Is no decision of any Indian Court on the question involved in this case; and we also find that "there is singularly little English authority" on this aspect of the law (vide Winfield on Tort ). The question relates to the liability of a person of unsound mind for a tort committed by him.

(2.) THE appellant is a Hindu belonging to Ramnad District; and he used to come to alleppey often. And during such visits, he used to so to the Mullackal temple and worship there. On 7th October 1961, he entered the temple wearing shirt and shoes and broke the idol of the deity; and he was caught and handed over to the police. From his behaviour, the police suspected that he must have been insane; and they handed him over to the nearest doctor. The doctor kept him under observation till 21st October and issued a medical certificate stating

(3.) THE appellant was prosecuted before the criminal court for criminal trespass, mischief, etc. : and the magistrate acquitted him holding that he was insane. The matter was taken up in appeal before this Court; and this Court confirmed the acquittal. Thereafter came the present suit for damages for breaking the idol and also for the expenses incurred by the respondent (the Travancore Devaswom board) for conducting purification ceremony in the temple. The trial court held that the appellant was insane: the trial court also fixed the damages including the expenses for the purification ceremony at Rs. 3202. 63. In the suit, the appellant was not represented by any guardian as he was then normal: and he himself filed the written statement and was also examined as a witness. (In this Court also, he is not represented by guardian.) It was argued before the trial court by the counsel of the appellant that, since the appellant was insane at the relevant time, he was not liable to be mulcted in damages -- in other words, he was not liable in tort. This argument was met by the counsel of the respondent by an alternate argument that, even if the appellant was insane, since the liability for meeting the expenses for purification and for re-installing the idol was a liability falling under the relevant rules framed by the Devaswom Board under the Travancore-Cochin temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act--a statutory liability, it was in the nature of an absolute liability and therefore the appellant was liable. This argument was rejected by the trial court, which held that the relevant rules were ultra vires. In appeal before the District Judge by the Devaswom Board, the main contention related only to the second question. It was conceded that the appellant was insane at the relevant time: but it was urged that, since the liability cast on him was a statutory liability in the nature of an absolute liability, he was liable. And this contention was accepted by the District Judge. Since there was no controversy regarding the quantum of the damages, the amount awarded by the munsif was confirmed.