LAWS(KER)-1982-3-17

N KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 19, 1982
N.KRISHNAMOORTHY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is by the State of Kerala, for recovery of damages Rs. 7,100/- from the defendant, for the damage done to the Tagore Centenary Theatre, Trivandrum, belonging to the State and managed by a Committee of which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum is the Secretary and Convenor. The defendant as the Secretary of an Art Association known as "Roopanjali", was allotted the theatre for the performance of a dance and music concert on 19-1-1969. During the course of the performance there was an unexpected onrush of people resulting in damage to the fixtures and furniture in the theatre and the Government had to spend Rs. 7,200/- for repairs and replacement of the articles damaged. According to the plaintiff, damage to the theatre was caused during the performance on 19-11969 while the theatre was in the use of occupation of the defendant and he is bound to restore the same in the condition in which it was allotted for his use. The security deposit of Rs. 100/- was deducted and the balance of Rs. 7,100/ is claimed as damages from the defendant for the loss sustained by the Government. The defendant resisted the suit denying his liability for damages and also disputing the quantum of damages fixed by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have held that the defendant is liable in damages for the loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of the damage done to the fixtures and furniture in the theatre during the course of the performance on 19-1-1969 arranged by the defendant as the Secretary of 'Roopanjali''

(2.) The lower appellate Court in para 9 of its judgment has held :

(3.) The lower appellate Court has rightly held that the defendant was only a licensee of the threatre, made available for his use for the performance conducted on 19-1-1969. The plaint also proceeds on the basis that the defendant was a licensee of the theatre for conducting the music and dance performance on 19-1-1969. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is stated :