This appeal presents unusual facts.

2. On 06.02.2001, in the Post Office Street, in Panagudi, in Radhapuram Taluk, in Tirunelveli District, while the Car of Arulmigu Ramalinga Sivagami Ambal Thirukoil(Ist defendant) was in procession, an unfortunate event took place. The Kumbum atop the Temple Car suddenly fell down. It fell on the plaintiff. He was seriously injured. He was taken to Thiravium Ortho Hospital. He was treated.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that there is a duty on the part of the defendant/temple authorities to upkeep properly the temple Car ensuring safety and security of others. Since they did not do so, allowed the Car to run in such a bad condition, it has resulted in causing injury to the plaintiff. There is utter failure to take proper precautionary measures by defendants. Plaintiff suffered mentally and physically. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay him damages. Plaintiff issued EX-A1 notice to them demanding damages. It was denied through Ex.A4 reply. In the circumstances, plaintiff laid the suit (O.S.No.224 of 2002) claiming Rs.2 lakhs as damages.

4. It was resisted by the defendants. The first defendant filed written statement. It was adopted by other defendants.

5. Defendants did not deny the occurrence and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. They plead that the plaintiff himself volunteered. He cannot make a claim. They also pleaded that the defence of Act of God. It is also pleaded that in connection with the very incident, already plaintiff had received Rs.36,075/-.

6. The Trial Court framed the issues and tried the suit. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, one Arunachalam as P.W.2 and marked EX-A1 to EX-A6, while Veluchamy, the Temple Executive Officer deposed himself as DW-1 and EX-B1 has been marked.

7. Considering the rival submissions and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that this incident was due to the carelessness and negligence of the defendants in not properly maintaining the temple Car. The Trial Court refused to believe EX-B1. Ultimately, decreed the suit in part for Rs.1,23,000/-with 6% future interest from the date of filing the suit till realisation.

8. Aggrieved, the defendants directed the Ist appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2005.

9. The Appellate Court/Ist Additional District Court, Tirunelveli viewed the entire matter from different perspective. It was of the view that the plaintiff not satisfactorily explained as to why he had gone there. Possibility of the Kumbum having fallen down on account of certain unexpected events, which is beyond the control of the first defendant cannot be ruled out. It had also differed with the finding of the Trial Court with regard to EX-B1. Ultimately, allowed the appeal and thus, dismissed the suit.

10. Now, the plaintiff is before us.

11. Already, while admitting the Second Appeal, substantial question of law was formulated by this Court. Now, it is re-formulated, as under:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court has rendered a perverse finding by misleading the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and misconstrued the admission of DW-1."

12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the unsavory incident has been spoken to by PW-1 and substantiated by PW-2. It is the categorical admission of DW-1, the Temple Executive Officer, that no certificate as to the fitness of the temple Car has been obtained.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that at the time of occurrence, DW-1 was fifteen feet away from the scene place, thus he could not speak about the manner of the incident. The evidence on record pinpoints the carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendants, that has contributed to this incident. Even DW-1, in his cross-examination did not deny that the Car was very old.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that with regard to Ex.B1 not even a suggestion was posed to P.W.1 in his cross examination. Further a well reasoned Judgment of the Tria