The Municipal Council's action must be within the statutory limits of its powers, and the council can be held liable for torts committed by its agents or servants within the scope of their authority.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of an action in tort filed by the owner of a dog against a Municipal Corporation which killed the dog through its servant in purported exercise of its statutory power.

2. B.T. Pillai, a resident of Ariyanalloor street in Shencottah, owned a young dog of Fox Terrier species worth about Rs. 50. On 20-12-1954 the dog was out on the street accompanied by a servant of B.T. Pillai. One of the employees of the Municipal Council of Shencottah killed it. B.T. Pillai complained to the Municipal Council that his dog was killed by its employee unlawfully in spite of warning given to the employee by his own servant not to kill it. B.T. Pillai submitted in that complaint that the 'killing of his dog was illegal, high handed and unjustifiable', that the incident caused him not merely financial loss but also mental anguish and that unless he was given redress adequately by the Municipality he would be constrained to sue it in a Court of law for damages.

3. To this the Municipality sent a reply stating that one of its servants, Mookan Nayakar was engaged in killing stray dogs found within the Municipal limits of Shencottah and that several stray dogs were killed on 20-12-1954, and that one such stray dog was killed at a spot 20' away from the residence of B.T. Pillai. The reply further stated that the dog so killed was an old dog affected with serious skin disease, and that the dog was a source of danger to the residents of the town. The Municipality denied that the dog was killed deliberately without heeding the warning given by the servant of B.T. Pillai. Finally the Municipality justified its action under the provisions of S.254 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, XXIII of 1116.

4. B.T. Pillai filed O.S. 9 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsiff Court of Shencottah against the Municipal Council, Shencottah represented by its Commissioner for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs. 100 alleging that the defendant Municipality was not justified in killing his dog in the manner done by it, and that S.254 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act cannot afford any protection to the Municipality to escape from the consequences of its wrongful act. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 50 as damages representing the value of the dog he lost and Rs. 50 as damages for the mental agony which he suffered consequent on the loss of his pet dog.

5. The defendant Municipality was not even willing to admit that the plaintiff's dog was killed and put forward a dubious defence bordering on disingenuity. Its primary defence however was that the wrongful act complained of was done only in exercise of its statutory power, and that therefore it was not liable to be sued in tort for damages. There was also a further defence that the suit itself was barred under

S.375 of the Act.

6. The learned District Munsiff of Shencottah who tried the suit found that the plaintiff's dog was destroyed by the servant of the Municipal Council on 20-12-1954 in pursuance of the direction of the Council. The action of the Municipal Council was found to be unlawful on the ground that S.254 of the District Municipalities Act was inapplicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On these findings the learned District Munsiff decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

7. The Municipal Council preferred an appeal which was A.S.171 of 1957 on the file of the District Court of Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge held that quite apart from S.254 of the District Municipalities Act, the Municipality had the power to direct destruction of dogs straying in public streets. He further held that the employee of the Municipal Council who killed the dog acted in excess of the authority conferred upon him which was confined only to killing of stray dogs without owners, and that therefore the Municipal Council was not liable. The learned District Judge was also of opinion that S.375 of the Municipalities Act was a bar to the maintai