The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove actionable negligence and establish the direct, necessary, and natural sequence between negligence and the loss. The judgment also highlights the burden of proof on the plaintiff and the difficulty in proving actionable negligence.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for loss said to have been caused to the plaintiff's estate by the negligence of defendant 4. The suit was decreed and defendant 4 appeals.

2. The plaintiff is the owner of the Sansthan estate which is under the Court of Wards Defendant 4 was at all relevant times the plaintiff's manager. He was in charge as such manager from 10th April 1935 to 17th July 1937.

3. The estate consists of some 50 villages divided into 13 circles. Defendant 1 is one of the plaintiff's kamdars and was working in one of these circles, viz., Bazarkund circle. The respective duties of defendants 1 and 4, so far as they are relevant to this case, are set out in the plaint. The work of defendant 1, the Kamdar was, among other duties, to make realizations from tenants and to pay them moneys for the surrender of their tenancies. Defendant 4's principal duty was to supervise the work of the kamdars, and in particular of defendant 1.

4. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 1 embezzled moneys totalling Rs. 3,613-113 between the period February 1937 down to July 1937, and that these embezzlements were rendered possible by defendant 4's negligence.

5. In a suit for negligence the plaintiff must establish, first a duty to take care, secondly a breach of that duty and thirdly that such breach was, what the Courts call, the ''proximate cause'' of the loss or injury to the plaintiff.

6. The standard of care required is a matter of law and does not vary according to the individual although it does vary according to the circumstances, that is to say, in a case like the present, with the kind of office which defendant 4 holds. What is alleged against defendant 4 in the main is that he was slack in his supervision and did not enforce the accounting rules of the office with sufficient rigidity. It is denied by defendant 4 that he failed in the standard of care which would be required of a reasonable man in his circumstances. He also denies that in fact any loss was caused to the estate, and/or that if such loss was caused that it was the proximate cause of the loss.

7. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff; also it is necessary to point out that this is a case of special damage and not of general damage, and accordingly particulars must be furnished in the plaint and the matter must be proved as laid.

8. The difference between special and general damages is explained in Damodhar v. Vishvanath and three Ors., 1933 AIR(Nag) 29. Relying there on a quotation from Walsh and Weir on Pleadings in India it was observed that when the losses complained of are what may be colloquially described as tangible losses, being money which can be earmarked, and sensibly identified, and money which has been or would have been handled. then the damages are special. Halsbury in his Laws of England, Vol. 10, p. 846 calls it, damages which can be laid and proved in terms of figures.

The losses complained of here fall within the purview of these definitions and accordingly come within the legal category of special damage. Therefore, we are confined to the allegations regarding the losses which are made in the plaint and have only to see whether these allegations are sustained and whether the matter otherwise fulfils the rules of negligence which the law lays down.

9. The losses complained of in the plaint can be divided into three periods, first losses which occurred before the date of the detection which is given as 9th April 1937, secondly those which occurred on the date of detection viz., 9th April 1937, and thirdly subsequent losses: We will deal with each separately, but before doing so will give the general situation.

10. The position was this. Defendant 4 was the manager of this estate from 10th April 1935 to 17th July 1937. Defendant 1 was the Kamdar of Bazarkund circle. He is said to have embezzled moneys during the period of defendant 4's management. R.D. Gour, the Officer-incharge, Court of Wards, (P.W. 6) inspected this estate on 9