BANSI Vs. HUKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise out of two suits, which relate to circumstances which can be more conveniently considered in one judgment. Hukam Singh, the plaintiff in the two suits, alleges that he and some men of his party were beaten by Gobind Prasad, Gajadhar, Adha Ram and seven others. Criminal proceedings were instituted by both parties. The defendants party was convicted and Hukum Singh's party, who received serious injuries, were acquitted. Hukum Singh brought suit No. 464 of 1927 against the ten defendants for damages amounting to Rs. 662 for assault and beating. The Court of first instance decreed the suit and awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 50. On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate Court enhanced the amount of damages to Rs. 200. Second appeal No. 1008 has been preferred by the defendants against the decree of the lower appellate Court in that suit.

(2.) The defendants, Gobind, Gajadhar and Adha Ram, had instituted criminal proceedings against Hukam Singh and others on a charge of unlawfully rescuing cattle which. Gobind's party were taking to the pound. Hukam Singh and his party were acquitted. Suit No. 439 of 1927 was brought by Hukam Singh and others against the defendants, Gobind, Gajadhar and Adha Ram, for damages amounting to Rs. 715 for malicious prosecution. It was decreed by the Court of first instance against Adha Ram only for a sum of Rs. 215. The lower appellate Court upheld the decree. Second appeal No. 1143 of 1928 has been preferred by Adha Ram against the decree of the lower appellate Court in that suit.

(3.) Several grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal No. 1008. It is argued that appellants 1 to 7 did not take part in the actual beating and that they were not responsible for any damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the injuries inflicted on him in course of the "marpit." I am unable to give effect to this contention. If all the defendants had a common object and proceeded to assault the plaintiff, all of them were rightly held responsible for damages resulting from their joint action, although only three out of them took more prominent part than the others and caused injuries to him. It has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that the appellants did not act in the exercise of their right of private defence but were throughout the aggressors.