NAGINDER SINGH Vs. HAZURA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 04.10.1995 granting a sum of Rs. 1 lac as damages for causing wrongful death of Karamjit Singh, son of the plaintiffs. The appeal against such judgment and decree remained unsuccessful on 18.02.1997. It is the case of the plaintiff -respondents that their son namely Karamjit Singh was murdered by the defendants on 30.10.1989 at Village Aneer, P.S. Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, when the deceased and plaintiff No. 1 i.e. father of the deceased were present at their fish farm. It is asserted that while working in their fields adjacent to the fish farm of the plaintiffs, the defendants set on fire the parali (husk) in their fields. On this, plaintiff No. 1 and his son Karamjit Singh asked the defendants as to why they have done so, as the fire will damage the eucalyptus trees, but the defendants started quarrelling. Both of them had spade in their hands. In the meantime, Naginder Singh gave a blow to Karamjit Singh, which hit on his head. Consequent to such injury, Karamjit Singh died on way to Hospital near Phagwara. The plaintiffs assert that Karamjit Singh was 28 years of old and he was only the earning member of their family.

(2.) IN the written statement, the defendants denied the allegations and asserted that Karamjit Singh was a trespasser, who wanted to murder defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 inflicted injuries on the person of Karamjit Singh in self -defence. It was asserted that putting waste parali (husk) on fire, is an agricultural operation and that the heap of parali was more than 30 karams away from the eucalyptus trees belonging to the plaintiffs, therefore, there was no cause of any grievance of the deceased. It was the enmity between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which led to false implication of the defendants.

(3.) AFTER considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and such judgment and decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court, as mentioned above.