STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH Vs. KRISHNA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are from the decision of the learned Additional D. J., Rewa decreeing in part the plaintiff, Pandey Krishna Nand's suit against the State of Vindhya Pradesh, for damages on account of the collapse of his out -house by the fall on it of the wall of a temple owned by the defendant. Appeal No. 102 is by the defendant and appeal No. 111 is by the plaintiff for the disallowed portion of the claim. This case of tort is an unusual one, involving the following questions; first about the general principles applicable to a case of this nature. Secondly, whether the defendant has been negligent; and thirdly whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving as a fact, that his building fell down, by the collapse on it of the temple wall, being as it were, knocked down by it; and finally, assuming defendant's liability, if the plaintiff has at all proved his monetary estimates.

(2.) THE facts of the case are the following: In Rewa town there is a temple of Ram, Krishna originally built by the plaintiff's forebears, but taken over by the Government of Rewa. which has since then come into the charge of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. It was administered for sometime by what was called, the Dharmarth department, and upon its abolition by the revenue authorities. Contiguous to this temple and separated from it by a three feet strip used as a passage, is the homestead land of the plaintiff. Nearest to the temple there was an out -house made of mud walls with a tiled roof on a bamboo frame work. In it the plaintiff used to keep unwanted things like husk, and as he says some pots, old pictures, and the parts of a tent that had been coming on in the family for some generations. Father away from the temple is the plaintiff's pucca house in which he resides. Besides the temple proper, there were some rooms and other structures attached to it, one of which, nearest to the out -house, was dilapidated, and roofless. The bare wall by the side of the plaintiff's out -house was allowed to stand, the temple authorities obviously intending to build on it in future. By 1947 or 1948 the plaintiff began to fear that this bare wall might come down on his out -house. He accordingly moved the municipality to take steps for the pulling down of the structure. He says that he also moved the Dharmarth department, which is likely. Sometime in 1948 the municipality issued notice on the Dharmarth department for the demolition of the structure; but in 1949 the latter made some repairs from the bottom that is to say, the foundation of the wall, up to some height, leaving the top most part of the wall, untouched, either because, it. was not in need of repairs or because, there was no danger. This is of no consequence here, as the entire wall, from the foundation, collapsed later on - After those repairs neither did the municipality pursue the matter nor did the plaintiff himself, moved any further, though before it he had been running about from this to that authority. Whatever the legal implications, it is certain, as a fact that the repairs done in 1949 satisfied not only the municipality which had started proceedings, but also the plaintiff himself.

(3.) THE defence was that there had been no negligence and the wall had been maintained at least after 1949 in good repair. The plaintiff's out -house did not come down because of. the collapse of the temple wall; both came down in the rain like many other houses at Rewa. Even if it was assumed for argument's sake that the house of the plaintiff was knocked down by the fall of the temple wall it was the result of exceptionally heavy rains, and, as such an act of God. Finally, the plaintiffs estimate of damages was exaggerated and impossible; the actual losses were far less.