CHINNASWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. P SUNDARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is by the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 3328 towards principal and Interest in respect of damages caused to the plaintiffs' house and articles by fire, which is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in his premises.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case is as follows: The plaintiffs' house is south of the plot, where the defendant has installed his oil mill. On 27-6-1947 at about 6 a.m. the plaintiffs, who were temporarily staying at another house near their own, received intimation that a fire had broken out at No. 6, Geil's Street (the defendant's premises) and that huge smoke was spreading towards their premises. The plaintiffs rushed to the spot, and when they opened the rooms in the house they found that the fire had already burnt down the window in the northern wall of the western room in the back portion of their premises as also the wooden rafters, beams and reapers beneath the tiled roof of that room. Before the arrival of the fire brigade the fire had spread to the koodam also. The whole superstructure except the front rooms, entrance and the small room in the eastern end of the house had crumbled down, the walls on the eastern and western sides of the house had also fallen down. The estimate of the damages caused to the building as well as the articles belonging to the plaintiffs' family is set out in A schedule. Schedule B contains the value of the articles belonging to one S. N. Gopalakrishna Chetti, the plaintiffs' uncle's son, who kept them in the plaintiffs' house. They were also burnt down. The claim is for the amount mentioned in the A and B Schedules. The plaintiffs' allegation is that the fire was caused due to gross negligence and wilful default on the part of the defendant and his assistants. The allegations in the plaint are that unskilled workmen were permitted by the defendant to work the mill and that no precautionary measures were taken by the defendant to prevent the spread of fire in the neighbourhood.

(3.) The defendant denied the allegations and stated that the plaintiffs were not staying temporarily in another place and that it is not true that on receipt of intimation they came to the spot. The case of the defendant is that the fire originated in the plaintiffs' premises owing to their own negligence, and spread towards north destroying the property of the defendant to the extent of about Rs. 15,000. According to the defendant the fire broke out at 5-10 a.m. in the northern room on the western wing of the plaintiffs' house which was then locked, the plaintiffs having gone out at 5 a.m. to attend a function in the neighbourhood. One of the occupants In the plaintiffs' house noticed smoke coming out of the crevices from the doorways and windows of the said room and he rushed to the plaintiffs and Informed them about It. Soon the fire in the room blazed forth burning the rafters and beams of the roof over the room and koodam and destroyed the articles therein. This fire spread to the defendant's premises and caused damage to his articles. The defendant denied that unskilled workmen were employed that day and stated that he himself came that morning at about 5-30 a.m. and that the mill was not started as his workmen did not turn up. In short, the defendant shifted the responsibility to the plaintiffs for the damages caused not only to his own articles, but also to the articles of the plaintiffs by stating that the fire originated in the plaintiffs' premises and spread to the defendant's premises.