LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus MODERN CULTIVATORS, LADWA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 273 STATE OF PUNJAB v. MODERN CULTIVATORS, LADWA (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Torts-Break in canal bank-Suit for damages-defendants' negligence- Non-production of documents by defendant-If adverse inftreuce can be drawn-Whether principle Re! lpsa Loqu;tur applits?- Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 18731 ss. 6, 15. A firm called the Modern Cultivators brought a suit against the State of Punjab to recover damages for loss of crops suffered by flooding. '.Jf its Jands as a result of a break in a canal belonging to the State. The plaintiff's case was that there was a breach in the western bank of the canal owing to the negligence of the defendants and canal water escap!!d to the fields 1.:ausing them to be flooded. The case of Govern- ment wao;; that bre.ach did take place but it was promptly repaired and the fields were fiooded not by the canal water but by heavy rains in the monlh of s~ptembcr. The trial Judge passed a decree for Rs. 20,000 against Government. but it was reduced by the High Court to Rs. 14,130. The High Cotrt held that the inundation of the fields was by water frCtm the canal and not from the nallahCis. Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed cross-appeals by special leave ot this Court. Held (per Sarkar, J.): (i) That the rule of res ip_ra loquitur was applicable to the facts of this case because there would not have been a breach in the banks of the canal if those in management took proper care and tt-.e breach itself would be prin1a facie proof of negligence. Scott v. L11ndon_Dock Co., 3 H & C 601 applied. Bal'kway v. South Waler Transport Ca. Ltd., [19SO] 1 All. E.lt. 392, •istinguished. (ii) An inference that the defendant was negligent in the manage- ment of the canal arises because· it is clear from the record that docu- ments cailed for had not been produced deliberately. MurugesonJ Pillai v., Manickavasaka Pandara, L .. R. 44 I.A. 98, rtlerred to. . (iii l Arrick 2 o! the Limitation Act does not apply to the facts· of tJte case fo~ ·tilert> is :nothing in the Canal Act imposing any duty On the def·~n<lant to taie. care of the banks. Held (per Hid.,,ati.Iiah, J,): (i) The principle of ru i1pa loquitur Manot always be safely applied where the faci.. before the court aro mot the whole facto. It ahould not . be applied u le11al rule but only II ll.C.-11. 1964 May, 8 lfU 811111 •f l'UN/a• •• lltlUnc C1tltira- IMI SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64] u an aid to an inference when it is reasonable to think that there aro no further facts to consider. It is not a principle which dispenses wi ·~. proof of negligence. !lather it shifts onua from one party to another • It is a rule of evidence .and not of liability. A too ready reliance ot1 the maxim reinforces a fault liability and makes it into an absolute liability. If absolute liability is to giTe way to fault liabilty, some fault must be establshed by evidence .or must be capable of being reasonably inferred from the circumstances. It is not sufficient to s:t.y Tt.8 ipJa loquitur because the danger is that facts may not alway5 tell the whole story and if there is something withheld bow can the thing be said lo speak for itself? The High Court erred in applying tloe principle of res ipsa loqutur to the facts of this case. In the present case there was sufficient evidence, in the absence 1f reasonable cxplanati..:.a (~lticb there was not), to estabfish negligence. Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, expla'ned. Stdltigh·Denfidd v. V. O'Ca//aghan and Others [1940] A.C. 880 an'd Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 59': 159 E:R. 665, referred to. Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co. Ltd. [1950] I All. E.R. 392 H.L. 394, relied on. (ii) The rule in Ray/ands v. Fletcher is hardly dpplicable here. Canal Systems are essential to the life of the Nation and land that is used as canals, is subjected to an ordinary use and not ·to unnatural use on which the rule in Ray/ands v. Fletcher rests. 1bere is difficulty In distinguishing non-natural and natural user. Rylands v. Flttcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 300, inapplicable. Richards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263, relied on. (iii) Article 2 of the Limitation Act cannot apply to cases ·where the act or omission complained of is not alleged to be in pursu<inr.c of statutory authority. Act or omission which can claim statutory protection or is alleged to be in pursua
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.