DEBENDRA BHOI Vs. MEGHU BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal involves an interesting question of law as to whether the general exceptions provided under the Penal Code would be applicable in a suit for damages on torts, indeed, at the time of admission of the appeal this question was formulated by the Court for examination.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal may be shortly stated thus; Appellant, Debendra Bhoi, filed the suit (M.S.No.30 of 1973) before the Munsif, Bargarh claiming Rs.500/- towards damages from the respondents Meghu Bhoi and Dhanei Bhoi on the allegations that on 26-7-73, the latter assaulted him causing injuries, as a result of which he was treated in the Government Central Hospital, Bargarh, for 11 days and suffered physical and mental pain and financial loss. Respondent 2, Dhanei Bhoi, is the son of respondent 1, Meghu Bhoi, it was the further case of the appellant that land described in the Schedule 'A' to the plaint situated in Mouza Sarsara belonged to him. The respondents had land adjoining the appellant's land to its north and south. According to the appellant the respondents while preparing their land for transplantation of paddy, had scrapped the Northern and Southern ridges of the Schedule 'A' land in spite of protest of the appellant. On 26-7-73 when the appellant was talking with some of the local gentries to resolve the dispute and while the latter were enquiring the facts from both the parties, the respondents got enraged and all on a sudden assaulted the appellant by a stick, resulting in bleeding injuries on his person for which the appellant had to undergo treatment. On these allegations, he claimed Rs.200/- towards general damages for mental pain and humiliation and Rs.300/- as special damages for purchase of medicine, loss of work for 11 days, conveyance charges to and fro the hospital and other expenses for treatment etc.

(3.) The respondents in their written statement did not controvert the fact that an incident took place between the parties on 26-7-1973 when the respondent 1 Meghu Bhoi was going to the land with his plough along with Chakra Bhoi. On the way, the appellant protested by making a false allegation that he (defendant 1) had cut the ridges of the land of the appellant. When respondent 1 protested to this allegation, the appellant raised the spade in his hand to assault him. At that time the second respondent reached the spot and in order to protest his father, assaulted the appellant and with the assistance of Chakra Bhoi and others snatched away the spade from his hand. The respondents went on to state that respondent 1 did not assault the appellant and the incident did not take place on the land of the appellant. On these averments they contested the claim for damages.