Back
1942 Supreme(Mad) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Abdur Rahman, J.
Maharani Gurucharan Kaur of Nabha and Anr.
Versus
The Province of Madras, through the Collector of Madura and Ors.
Decided On : 06.02.1942
The Government could not be held liable for the acts of its servants when they are performed not in the carrying on of an ordinary business transaction but in pursuance of the exercise of Governmental or sovereign power.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The first plaintiff, a wife, and the second plaintiff, a minor daughter of the ex-Maharaja of Nabha, brought a suit for damages against the Province of Madras through the Collector of Madura and four police officials for wrongful confinement or imprisonment at Kodaikanal Road Railway Station on 13th January, 1937, when they were prevented from boarding the Trivandrum Express by the Sub-Inspector of Police under the mistaken belief that he was ordered to detain the ex-Maharaja of Nabha.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub-Inspector of Police had acted bona fide in detaining the first plaintiff, although erroneously, as he had understood that he was ordered to prevent the ex-Maharaja of Nabha from leaving Kodaikanal. The court also found that the other defendants had acted in good faith in carrying out the orders of the Sub-Inspector. The court further held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act and Section 53 of the District Police Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were acting bona fide in the lawful discharge of their duties? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act and Section 53 of the District Police Act? 3. Whether the Province of Madras could be held liable for the acts of the other defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Sub-Inspector of Police had acted bona fide in detaining the first plaintiff, although erroneously, as he had understood that he was ordered to prevent the ex-Maharaja of Nabha from leaving Kodaikanal. The court also found that the other defendants had acted in good faith in carrying out the orders of the Sub-Inspector. 2. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act and Section 53 of the District Police Act. 3. The court held that the Province of Madras could not be held liable for the acts of the other defendants as they were acting in discharge of their statutory duties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed against all the defendants and the memorandum of cross-objections was also dismissed.
Abdur Rahman, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages brought by two ladies, the first plaintiff being a wife and the second plaintiff a minor daughter of the ex-Maharaja of Nabha against the Province of Madras through the Collector of Madura and four police officials one of whom was the then District Superintendent of Police at Madura, the other a Sub-Inspector of the Government Railway Police at the Madura Railway Station and the remaining two, head constable and constable of the Government Railway Police stationed at Kodaikanal Road Railway Station in the Madura District. The facts that have led to the institution of this suit may be first stated.
2. Nabha is an. important Sikh state in the Punjab which was being ruled since 1911 by the first plaintiffs husband. He was interned in 1928 at Kodaikanal--a hill station in the Madura District--by an order of the Government, of India to which reference is made in a memorandum (Ex. VII-b) issued by the Government of Madras to the District Magistrate, Madura on the 22nd February, 1928, (the year 1922 typed in the letter being obviously a mistake for 1928). A second memorandum No. 477-3 (Political), dated the 22nd June, 1928 (Ex. VII-c) issued by the Undersecretary to the Government of Madras to the District Magistrate, Madura shows that the Government of India, although not desirous of imposing a close supervision over the ex-Maharaja of Nabha, yet wanted a watch to be maintained by the police at any Railway Station where the detenu was likely to entrain and steps to be taken to. ensure his rearrest in the event of his absconding. This memorandum also discloses the fact that the Government of India had then forbidden the ex-Maharaja from absenting himself from his residence at night but this condition is stated by him in his evidence to have been relaxed later. The existence or non-existence of such a condition is however irrelevant for the purposes of this case and may be left out. of consideration. It would appear from a third memorandum No. 477-6, dated the 22nd August, 1928 (Ex. VII-d), that the movements of the ex-Maharaja, were under the orders of the Government of India to be restricted to Kodaikanal municipal limits. A copy of this memorandum was also issued to the Inspector-General, of Police who communicated the decision of the Government to the District Superintendent of Police at Madura on the 24th August, 1928 (Ex. VII). Since then the ex-Maharaja has been living in Kodaikanal and had with the object of keeping their company and of, as he says, giving "them a send-off", accompanied the plaintiffs in their car on some occasions when they wished to visit Madras, but is not stated to have transgressed the Kodaikanal municipal limits.
3. From a letter written by Mr. Ganesan (P.W- 6) on behalf of the first plaintiff on the 11th January, 1937, to the Station Master Kodaikanal Road (Ex. F) asking a first class compartment to be reserved, it appears that she originally intended to leave Kodaikanal Road by the Trivandrum Express on Tuesday, the 12th January, 1937, but as no reply was received by him in time, they decided, to leave Kodaikanal Road by the same train on the next day, i.e., on the 13th January, 1937 (Ex. F-l). She eventually left Kodaikanal on 13th January, 1937, at about 5-30 P.M. with her daughter the second plaintiff. About half an hour after their departure, a telegram (Ex. IV) was despatched by the Station House Officer, (a head constable), to the District Superintendent of Police, Madura, North, which reads as follows:
Ex-Maharaja departuring to Madras Spencer Hotel with family in Car. M.D. 2037
This led the District Superintendent of Police to wire (Ex. V). to the Sub-Inspector, . Kodaikanal, to prevent the ex-Maharaja from leaving Kodaikanal. But it was unnecessary to take any action-on that telegram as another telegram (Ex. VI) was despatched by the Station House Officer at 7-30 P.M. in the meantime informing the District Superintendent of Po
