GANDA SINGH Vs. CHUNI LAL SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who is the appellant, before us to recover Rs. 200 as damages for the injuries he suffered by reason of his having been bitten by a mischievious animal, to wit, a horse belonging to the defendant. The Munsif decreed the suit and awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 200 as damages. On appeal to the lower Appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision.

(2.) The first point is whether this was a vicious animal, and whether the defendant had knowledge of the propensities of the animal. The learned Subordinate Judge found that, on the admitted facts of the case, the horse had bitten three people on previous occasions, namely, twice a groom and, on one occasion, an outsider. Against this evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge held that that did not establish the fact that the animal was a vicious animal. That is a finding altogether contrary to the whole body of the evidence. On the admissions of the defendant, it is quite clear that this animal, in fact, was, a vicious animal and the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have so found on the evidence before him. The findings he has made are wholly unwarranted by the evidence.

(3.) The next point is "did this horse bite the plaintiff?" The learned Subordinate Judge agreeing with the Munsif has found that it did, in fact, bite the plaintiff. But he has come to the conclusion that the defendant was not guilty of negligence. That is not necessary to support a suit of this nature. If the horse was a vicious animal, and if that fact was known to the defendant and knowing this he kept the horse, and if it injured the plaintiff, then the defendant must be held liable, notwithstanding that he has not been guilty of negligence. Negligence is not a necessary ingredient of a suit of this nature. Therefore, the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff was bitten by the defendant s horse is prima facie sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to damages.