A.HARIPRASAD
RAMAN – Appellant
Versus
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – Respondent
Caprisoned elephants add charisma and enchantment to many religious festivals and social functions of ours. Without being aware of the fact that an elephant is ferae naturae (of a wild nature or disposition) or the intricacies of the Scienter Rule, people freely mingle with the animal, occasionally resulting in casualties. Ordeal of two mahouts, who have been dragged into a long drawn legal battle on account of the unexpected and unpredictable behaviour of the animal resulting in the unnatural death of a lady. Facts relevant for decision of this case can be summarised thus: Appellant, his brother Madhavan and Cochin Devaswom Board (in short, "the Board") had been arrayed as defendants in a suit for compensation by the legal representatives of deceased Rajeswari Thampuran, who was killed by an elephant owned by the Board. On 29.05.1986 at about 7.30 a.m., the deceased went to Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura to offer prayers. She entered the temple through "western gopuram". She saw the elephant by name Seetharaman standing on the northern side of "deepasthambam" and asked the appellant and his brother (the mahouts) whether she could proceed further. The mahouts
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.