Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13899
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ
NARENDRABABU ALIAS BABU NAICKEN – Appellant
Versus
K.J.JAIMS AND OTHERS – Respondent
RFA 459 2010
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI
A property owner can be held liable for incidents occurring on their property if they fail to contest ownership effectively.
Headnote:
Liability - Fatal Accidents - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section Specific References
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed compensation for the death of their son due to electrocution on the 2nd defendant's land, which he denied owning. Police investigation recorded the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld that the 2nd defendant failed to provide evidence denying ownership of the land, which was registered in his name, and the plaintiffs sufficiently proved the death and its cause.
Issues: Whether the 2nd defendant owned the land and liable for the fatal incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a denial of ownership without evidence and lack of pleadings to support new claims disallowed the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
This 2nd defendant, in a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act , is the appellant. The suit stands decreed against him alone. The plaintiffs, a couple, pleaded that their son Joby, then aged 27 years, died of electrocution at about 10 PM on 29.6.2006, while returning home through the ground-nut field owned by the 2nd defendant where agricultural activities were carried on by defendants 3 to 5 under a lease. The appealing 2nd defendant made a bald denial of the allegation that the land belonged to him. The fact that Joby died and a crime was registered by the Kollengode Police, arraying the appellant also as an accused, is a matter of record. The scene mahazar, FIR, FIS etc., were before the court below. The second defendant did not tender any evidence. Only an officer of the Electricity ::- 2 -::
Board was examined. The plaintiffs gave evidence through the first plaintiff and two others.
2. The court below found that there was no material in support of the 2nd defendant's denial of ownership of the property in question, which stood in his name. Taking note that the 4th respondent disputes the alleged lease, the court below found that there could not have been any agricultural lease, having regard to the prohibitions contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act . The death and cause of death of Joby has been proved on the basis of the materials on record. The plaintiffs were eligible for a decree for compensation.
3. There is no serious dispute as to the findings as regards the death of Joby, cause thereof and matters connected therewith.
4. In this appeal, the 2nd defendant tries to project a case, by seeking admission of additional materials, that the land in question was surrendered in terms of the provisions governing ceiling of excess lands and that therefore, the land cannot be treated as belonged to him. In the absence ::- 3 -::
of even an iota of plea in that regard in the written statement, we do not find any ground for admission of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any amount of evidence would be of no avail in the absence of pleadings.
We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE
