TIKA RAM Vs. SOBHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent for damages for mental worry anxiety and disgrace caused by the defendant's enticing away the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,800 as damages for disgrace and mental pain. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the suit was time barred. The trial Court found that the defendant enticed away the plaintiff's wife and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 400 with full costs. The decree was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal.

(2.) As already stated, the plaintiff has claimed damages for only mental pain and disgrace. In an action for seduction, the plaintiff must prove : (1) that the female seduced was in his service actual or constructive, at the time of seduction, otherwise there is no injuria; (2) that by reason of the act complained of or otherwise he was deprived of her services, otherwise there is no damnum, and both injuria and damnum are necessary to support this action : Mayne on Damages, Edn. 10, (vide p. 486), says: The action for seduction, properly so called, is an anomalous one. In form it purports to be merely an action for the consequential damage arising from the loss of service, resulting from the act complained of. Hence the action will fail unless some loss of service can be shown.

(3.) No Indian authority has been produced on this point, but the English cases are clear. In Grinnell V/s. Wells (1844) 66 R.R. 835, it was held that an action for seduction cannot be maintained without loss of service. At p. 842, it was observed: The foundation of the action by a father to recover damages against the wrong-doer for the seduction of his daughter has been uniformly placed, from the earliest time hitherto, not upon the seduction itself, which is the wrongful act of the defendant, but upon the loss of service of the daughter, in which service ha is supposed to have a legal right or interest. It has therefore always been held that the loss of service must be alleged in the declaration, and that loss of service must be proved at the trial, or the plaintiff must fail : see Bennet V/s. Alcott (1864) 2 T.R. 166.