AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatasubba Rao, J.—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 the 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. Sending the disposal of the application for the
issue of temporary injunction, the Abkari authorities made orders preventing the plaintiff from tapping the trees.
The plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming damages for the act of the Abkari authorities from the first defendant. 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 consequence 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 bean recorded by the District Muasif.
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 told 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.