CHOWDHRY BABU MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. SHAIKH NABI BUKHSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to kill bullocks and cows, and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with that right. The suit has been decreed against the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant appeals.

(2.) Several points have been taken on behalf of the appellant, but they have all been so exhaustively discussed in the excellent judgment of the learned District Judge that it is unnecessary to deal with them at great length.

(3.) The first point taken is that the plaint discloses no cause of action. It appears to me, reading the plaint as a whole, as I am bound to read it, that the plaint certainly discloses a cause of action. The plaintiff states in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint that defendant No. I sent a telegram to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sitamarhi and that the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, forbidding the plaintiff to kill cattle. It has been faintly suggested that there is no evidence that defendant No. 1 sent this telegram. On this point, the finding of fact of the Courts below is conclusive and it is, moreover, evidently right. The defendant No. 1 does not categorically deny sending this telegram. He says that he does not remember it. It is a perfectly safe inference that, if he had not sent the telegram, his memory would have been clear on the point.