ANANDI LAL Vs. FATEH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected matters arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Fateh Ali for restitution of certain goods removed from his shop by the defendant, and alternatively for their price. Appeal No. 39 of 1952 has been filed by the defendant Anandi Lal and the cross-objection by the plaintiff Fateh Ali.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that he was the lessee of a shop belonging to one Narain Lal and was a dealer in umbrellas, locks and other miscellaneous articles, and also carried on a repairer's business. Anandilal is the brother-in-law (wife's brother) of Narain Lal. Narain Lal is said to be mentally infirm and so Anandi Lal was managing the house-hold affairs of Narain Lal. It is alleged that Anandi Lal was anxious to raise the rent of the shop occupied by the plaintiff and as the latter was not agreeable to enhancement of rent, Anandi Lal wanted to evict Fateh Ali from the shop. With that object in view, Anandi Lal went to Fateh Ali's shop on 17. 9. 48 and 18. 9. 48, accompanied by a few labourers, and dismantled the back wall of the shop and forcibly removed the plaintiff's goods that lay there and took them over to Narain Lal's Pol close-by. THE plaintiff's son Jeewaji remonstrated with Anandi Lal but he paid no heed. THE plaintiff further alleged that he informed the police of what had taken place and also complained to the City Magistrate and the District Magistrate, and that the latter wrote to the police and the police took some action but the papers were pending. THE defendant refused to return the plaintiff's goods although the latter demanded them more than once, and hence the plaintiff filed this suit wherein he claimed the return of the goods, in specie, of which he had been deprived and in the alternative for the price of the goods which he assessed at a sum of Rs. 5,766/ -. THE plaintiff also claimed damages for having been kept out of his business. Defendant Anandi Lal pleaded that his sister, Narain Lal's wife was anxious to have the shop vacated because she wanted to execute certain repairs to the shop and that the plaintiff on being informed to that effect had vacated the shop of his own accord, kept part of his goods in Narain Lal's Pol, and removed the rest elsewhere. Defendant completely denied that he had removed or got removed the goods of the plaintiff. Defendant further contended that the plaintiff had assessed his damage at a sum of Rs. 100/- only in the court of the Magistrate and that he had inflated it merely to harass the defendant. Besides, according to the defendant the plaintiff was carrying on the business of repairs of locks and umbrellas etc. only and did not deal in any new goods.

(3.) LASTLY it is urged by learned counsel for the defendant that the trial court was in error in allowing exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 800/- to the plaintiff. The contention is that the plaintiff had laid no claim to such damages in his plaint. This argument has force. It is no doubt unquestionable that in an action of trespass to goods, punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded where the manner of taking the goods has been high-handed or oppressive but before such damages are awarded, they have to be pleaded. The gist of the plaintiff's action is that he claimed the price of his goods amounting to Rs. 5766/- in case the goods were not returned to him, and he also claimed damages for having been deprived of his business but he did not state any definite figure which he claimed as such. Both these items claimed were in the nature of special damages and had to be strictly proved by the plaintiff before any decree could be awarded in his favour in those respects. We have already given our finding with regard to the first item, and it is sufficient to state as regards the second that the plaintiff did not furnish any specific particulars of the loss suffered by him on account of the alleged loss of business. That not having been done, it is not possible for us to allow him any damages in this regard. Damages are of two kinds, special and general. Whereas a plaintiff must specifically allege and prove special damages, it is enough to claim general damages as a separate and distinct item in a lump sum and no particulars or details of such damage need be given. The reason is obvious. General damages are those which the law implies in every violation of a legal right and presumes in the ordinary course of events to flow from the defendant's act. General damages include such things as bodily or mental suffering, loss of reputation and similar other matters. It seems to us unfortunate that no such damages were claimed in the plaint and we are of opinion that such a plea could be added later only by an amendment of the plaint which was never applied for at any stage of the case, much less allowed. Besides, the plaintiff must have paid court-fee on such damages also. In the present case, the plaintiffs paid court-fees on Rs. 5766/- being the alleged price of the goods removed and no more. In these circumstances we are constrained to hold that we are unable to award any decree for general damages, exemplary or otherwise, in favour of the plaintiffs and we must set aside the lower court's decree in respect of such damages.