Acharath Parakat Kunhi Pakki v. Mekkileri Karai Kavari

1. The first defendant obtained an assignment of certain lands from the jenmi to whom it belonged. The second defendant has been a lessee under the jenmi. The plaintiff, under a contract with the second defendant, claimed the right to get the trees marked and tap them. The first defendant filed a suit against the second defendant and applied for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the second defendant from getting the trees marked or from tapping them. The application was adjourned by the Judge to whom it was made to the 28th March 1922. After the adjournment was made the first defendant petitioned the Abkari authorities to prevent he second defendant and the plaintiff from dealing with the trees in question in the manner they claimed they had a right to deal with them. Pending the disposal of the application for the issue of temporary injunction, the Abkari authorities made orders preventing the plaintiff from tapping the trees.

2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming damages for the act of the Abkari authorities from the first defendant.

3. The District Munsif who tried, the suit unfortunately treated it as one relating to procuring a breach of contract and his judgment is vitiated by this mistake. The judgment, as it stands cannot be supported. Clerk and Lindsell at p. 150 of their Book on Torts say:

“Where between the act of the defendant and the damage complained of there intervenes, as one of the links in the chain of causes, the wrongful act or omission of a third party, the question whether the damages are to be regarded as too remotely connected with the defendant's wrongdoing, seems to depend upon the following considerations………. If, therefore, the defendant intends that, as the consequences of the act; done by himself, the third party shall do the act which immediately causes; the damage, he will be liable.” With, reference to the law, as stated in the passage quoted, let us see how the facts stand. Did the defendant intend that, as a consequence of the act done by himself, the Abkari authorities should do the act which immediately caused the damage? In the first place, for ascertaining the intention of the defendant there must be something on the record to show that the statement he made to the Abkari authorities is untrue. If, as a matter of fact, the defendant was really the owner of the trees, and the plaintiffs did not have a right to tap those trees, no intention to cause damage to the plaintiff can be inferred. Unfortunately a finding on this essential matter has not been recorded by the District Munsif.

4. For a proper disposal of the case it would be necessary to call for a finding on the issues that arise with reference to the observations I have made above but considering that this will involve not only a waste of time, but a large expense to the parties out of proportion to the petty amount involved, Mr. Kunhiraman, the learned counsel for the respondent, very properly Sold me that, if I was against him, the best thing to do would be to allow this civil revision petition and not to call for a finding from the lower appellate Court. Accepting that suggestion, I allow the civil revision petition and set aside the decree, but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs.

5. Appeal allowed.