Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1972 Supreme(Mad) 469

Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI
Perumal - Appellant
Versus
Devarajan - Respondent
Decided On : 08/30/1972

Advocates:
S. Jagadesan, for Appellant, N. Sivamani and Naryanaswami, for Respondents.

The cause of action against the second defendant did not survive after his death, and his legal representatives were not personally liable for the suit claim, as the liability was in the nature of an Avyavaharika debt.

Headnote:
DAMAGES - WRONGFUL CONVERSION - LIABILITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - AVYAVAHARIKA DEBT - CRIMINAL ACT - SURVIVAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION - SECTION 306, INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1952 - HINDU LAW.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendants for stealing and damaging his transistor. The first defendant was convicted under Sections 454 and 380, IPC, and the second defendant was convicted under Section 380 or 411, IPC. The trial court found the defendants liable for wrongful conversion and damages. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendants' responsibility for the theft or damage.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the lower appellate court's finding was perverse and against the evidence. The conviction of the defendants in the criminal case was admissible to prove their liability for the suit claim. The plaintiff had also established that the transistor was in working condition before it was stolen and was damaged when returned.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established that the defendants were responsible for the theft or damage to the transistor. 2. Whether the cause of action against the second defendant survived after his death and whether his legal representatives were liable for the suit claim.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The conviction of the defendants in the criminal case was admissible to prove their liability for the suit claim. The plaintiff had also established that the transistor was in working condition before it was stolen and was damaged when returned. 2. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1952, does not apply to heirs or legal representatives of a deceased but is confined to cases where a right is sought to be claimed against the executor or administrator of the deceased. The liability of the second defendant in this case was in the nature of an Avyavaharika debt, and as such, the third and fourth defendants were not personally liable to pay that debt.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and a decree was passed against the first defendant and against the third and fourth defendants to the extent of the property inherited by them from the second defendant. There was no order as to costs.

JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 750/- as and for damages in respect of a transistor. The plaintiff is a teacher employed in Olagappampalayam. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant and he was studying in the S.S.L.C. class in Olagappampalayam High School. On 25-5-1965 the first defendant stole the Phillips Model Transistor belonging to the plaintiff, who gave a complaint to the Thruchengode Police against the first defendant. The police, after investigation charged defendants 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. The first defendant also gave a confessional statement. The first defendant was convicted under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. The second defendant was also convicted but in the judgement in C. C. No. 1949 of 1965 it is stated that he was convicted under Section 380 or 411, I.P.C. When the transistor was returned to the plaintiff after the prosecution was over, he found it was not working. He gave it to G. E. C. Company for repairs but they reported that the transistor was irrepairable. Thereupon he filed the suit claiming the sum of Rs. 750/- as damages. The defendants filed a written statement in which they contended that they had not stolen the transistor, that they were made victims in the prosecution maliciously launched by the plaintiff and that they had nothing to do with the same. Pending the suit, the second defendant died and his wife and another son were impleaded as the third and the fourth defendants respectively. The trial Court found that the defendants were guilty of wrongful conversion and as a result of the same the transistor was damaged. He therefore held that the defendants were liable for the suit claim. The learned Additional District Munsif also held that the cause of action against the second defendant survived even after his death and therefore defendants 3 and 4 were also liable for the suit claim. It may also be mentioned that the trial Court found the value of the transistor as Rs. 750/-. On appeal by the first and the third defendants, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff had not established satisfactorily that the first defendant or the second defendant or both were responsible for the theft or the damage to the plaintiff's transistor and that therefore they are not liable for the suit claim. Hence the second appeal.

2. Even at the outset, I want to state that the view of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff has not established satisfactorily that the first defendant or the second defendant or both were responsible for the theft is perverse and clearly against the evidence and the legal position. The lower appellate Court refused to rely on Exhibit A-3 which is a certified copy of the judgement in C. C. No. 1949 of 1965. It is true that the evidence discussed in that judgement and the fact that the first defendant had confessed his guilt in his statement is not admissible in evidence in the suit. But it is not correct to state that even the factum that the first and the second defendants were charged under Sections 454, and 380, I.P.C. and they were convicted on those charges could not be admitted. The order of the Criminal Court is, in my opinion, clearly admissible to prove the conviction of the first defendant and the second defendant and that is the only point which the plaintiff had to establish in this case. The plaintiff had let in oral evidence apart from examining himself to prove that the transistor was in a working condition before it was stolen and it was not in a working condition when it was returned to him.Clearly therefore he was entitled to the damages.

The view of the lower appellate Court that independently of the conviction, the plaintiff should prove that the first defendant or the second defendant had stolen the transistor is clearly not sustainable. Though the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to dispute the value of the transistor, in view

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Mad) 469

Madras High CourtV. RAMASWAMIPerumal - AppellantVersusDevarajan - RespondentDecided On : 08/30/1972

The cause of action against the second defendant did not survive after his death, and his legal representatives were not personally liable for the suit claim, as the liability was in the nature of an Avyavaharika debt.

Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI
Perumal - Appellant
Versus
Devarajan - Respondent
Decided On : 08/30/1972