MOHAMMAD HABIB Vs. RAM NARAIN LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the plaintiffs alleged that they had let out a house in Mahalla Darzitola in the Patna City Municipality to the defendant on monthly rental. The defendant was a fruit seller and lived! in the house leased out to him by the plaintiffs along with his family. In February, 1949 the house was burnt down by a fire, and the case of the plaintiffs is that the fire was caused due to the negligence of the deft and so the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in tort. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the fire broke out suddenly on the north eastern corner of the outer verandah when all the inmates of the house were a sleep and that there was no negligence on his part and that the fire was not due to his negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. The lower appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court and has given a decree for compensation to the plaintiffs.

(2.) In support of this appeal the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no finding of the lower appellate court that the fire was caused because of negligence on the part of the defendant and it was also contended by learned Counsel that the onus of proof has been wrongly placed by the lower appellate court on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence. We think that the argument of learned Counsel is well founded and that the lower appellate court has wrongly given a decree to the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs was that the fire started in the central hall of the house where the defendant had kept empty fruit baskets and packing cases and also cooking oven and that the fire occurred on account of the negligence of the defendant. This aspect of the plaintiffs' case has been disbelieved by the lower appellate court. The case of the defendant was that the fire started in the north-eastern corner of the outer verandah where there was a rubbish heap. The evidence of the defendant on this part of the case was examined and disbelieved by the lower appellate court. But the lower appellate court has given a decree on the ground that the burden of disproving negligence was on the defendant in the circumstances of this case. The lower appellate court states as follows in the course of its judgment :

(3.) In our opinion, the lower appellate court misdirected itself on a point of law in throwing the onus of proof upon the defendant to show that there was absence of negligence. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case and so it is sufficient for the plaintiffs to prove the acciden and nothing more, and unless a satisfactory explanation is given by the defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for damages. We do not think that this argument is correct. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been explained by Erle C.J., in the leading case of Scott v. London Docks Co. (1865) 3 H. and C. 596 (at p. 601) as follows: