INDRANI AMMAL Vs. A SAMBANDA APPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceedings involves a very interesting question, upon which there would appear to be no direct authority of the Indian Courts, concerning the liability of the owner of certain premises for loss or damage caused to the property of a neighbour by fire which, according to the evidence, spread from the premises of that owner to the neighbour's property. The case is a little difficult, even apart from the paucity of Indian authorities, since the facts themselves have not been very clearly established. However, the first Court did find that the defendants (respondents) who are the landlords or proprietors, erected a thatched shed on their terrace a an undue height above the terrace wall, that this thatched shed took fire, and that the fire spread to the property of the neighbours revision petitioners) and caused damages. Actually, a buffalow belonging to the revision petitioners was destroyed by the fire, and the claim for Rs. 400, as damages was decreed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE new Trial Bench reversed this decree, holding that the defendants (landlords) were not liable for the negligence of the tenants. This, as I shall presently show, is not a correct statement of the law. The new Trial Bench also held, on the facts, that the damage was 'too remote to fasten any liability on the defendants'. This conclusion would appear to be unwarranted. But the New Trial bench had some justification for pointing out that the learned trial Judge relied on ex. P-1, a true copy of the fire report recorded by the Madras Fire Service, which piece of evidence had not been properly proved.

(3.) THE common Law of this interesting subject is to be found in several decisions of the English Courts, of which Spicer v. Smee, (1946) 175 LT 163, is a good instance. It is not necessary to discuss the facts of this decision, but it is important to note the principle of law that where the proprietor, who is not the occupier, lets the property in a certain state which might amount to a private nuisance, the proprietor would be responsible to the third party who suffers injury by a fire accident. The matter has received a very full treatment in Balfour v. Barty King, 1957-1 All ER 156, a judgment of Lord Goddard C. J. The learned Chief Justice has dealt with the previous history of this liability, which the law has always recognised, and he approbates the dictum that