R. C. MANKAD, S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 15000. 00 under the following circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are the teachers in a Municipal School where one Jagpalsing son of the plaintiffs was studying Defendant No. 2 is the Head Master of the School. Defendant No. 4 is Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation which runs the school. Jagpalsing a boy of about 12 years of age was one amongst the sixty who constituted the picnic party. On 6th September 1966 the picnic party of these young urchins was taken by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to Bhadreshwar situate on the bank of river Sabarmati in the outskirts of the city of Ahmedabad. The party reached the picnic spot at about 9-30. A. M. It appears that after the party reached there the picnic party took food. Thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who were in charge of the picnic party had been taking their food. At about 11-30 A. M. when defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had been taking food they heard noise from the river side and they rushed there. Two boys who were in the river water were rescued by a fisherman Mahavir Raghu and his companions. The two boys who had swallowed river water and who had therefore developed disorder in their physical systems reported that Jagpalsing was still in the water. Mahavir Raghu and his companions were requested by defendants Nos. 1 and j to find out Jagpalsing Mahavir Raghu and his companies thereafter jumped into the water swam in the water and found out the dead body of Jagpalsing. The plaintiffs alleged that Jagpalsing was drowned and killed on account of the negligence shown by defendants No. 1 and 3. They therefore instituted the present action in torts against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 15000. 00 for damages.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 the rather of Jaspalsing died during the pendency of this appeal. His name was ordered to be struck off by this Court on 5 October 1973. The omission to bring his heirs on record is not fatal to the appeal because the appeal can proceed at the instance of plaintiff No. 2 the mother of Jagpalsing.

( 3 ) IT was contended in defence that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had given instructions to the boys not to go to the river side and that there fore they had discharged their duty towards those whom they had taken to Bhadreshwar for picnic.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge held that giving of instructions by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to the picnic party was sufficient care taken by the teachers and that therefore there was no negligence on the part of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 He therefore dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) IT is that decree which is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiffs.

( 6 ) THE facts about which there is no dispute are that two boys were rescued and the dead body of Jagpalsing was brought out from the river by the plaintiffs witness Mahavir Raghu a fisherman who was standing on the opposite bank across the river and who on hearing a cry for help jumped into the water and ran to the rescue of those who were in distress. The evidence of Mahavir Raghu does not throw any light on the circumstances under which three boys including Jagpalsing entered water. His evidence further shows that other boys of the picnic party were also there. The evidence of plaintiff No. 1 does not help us in determining the question of negligence because he had no personal knowledge of what happened at the picnic spot. Both the teachers have deposed before the Court. The evidence of Govindram Hariram Soni Ex. 37 and the evidence of Ramnaresh Ex. 38 the two teachers show that they took the picnic party to Bhadreshwar temple situate at a distance of about 200 feet from the river bank. It also shows that the picnic was taken there on 6th September 1966. It was monsoon season. The evidence further shows that water in the river was 10 feet deep. The evidence of the two teachers next shows that they had given instructions to all the boys not to go to the river bank or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document