THE ASIATIC STEAM NAVIGATION CO., LTD. versus SUB-LT. ARABINDA CHAKRAVARTI

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 12-01-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
979 
no material on the record by which it can reasonably 
be said that the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the 
Act applied to the present case. 
It was urged that the act of Veeravva in adopting 
the second defendant was to bring in a stranger and 
this action of hers could be questioned by a reversioner, 
as any aVenation made by her, during her life time. 
Reference was made to s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 
Illustration (f). In our opinion, this is of no avail to 
the appellant, because Illustration (f) obviously refers 
to a Hindu widow's estate and has no reference to a 
full owner. The right of a reversioner as one of the 
heirs under s. 42, Specific Relief Act, is limited to the 
question of preserving the estate of a limited owner 
for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners; hut 
as against a full owner, the reversioner has no such 
right. In our opinion, under the Act Veeravva becom-
ing a full owner of her husband's estate, the suit could 
not succeed and the appeal must accordingly fail. 
In our opinion, the appellant's suit was not main-
tainable~ having regard to the provisions of s. 14 of 
the Act, even if it be assumed that there was no valid 
adoption of the second defendant. The appeal accord-
ingly fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Kolturuswami 
v. 
Veeravva 
Imam]. 
THE ASIATIC STEAM NAVIGATION CO., LTD. 
x959 
V • 
January u. 
SUB-LT. ARABINDA CHAKRA V ARTI 
(SYED JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Shipping-Collision-Negligence-" Standing on" 
vessel-
" Giving way" vessel-Rights and duties-Nautical assessors-
Advice not binding on Court-Merchant Shipping Act, I894 (57 & 
58 Viet. c. 60) Regulations of I9IO, Arts. 2I, 23, 25, 27, 29. 
On December 13, 1940, in the afternoon, a cargo ship, N, 
left Madras harbour bound for Calcutta heading for the open 
sea. She was being navigated in a swept channel outside the 
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
'959 
harbour and was on her proper, namely the starboard side of the 
. . 
channel. At that time a patrol ship, K, was on an opposite 
Th~ Asi~tic _Steatncourse making for Madras harbour and entered the channel at 
'(· 
Nav•gatwn 
about 6-25 p. m. 
At 6-30 p. m. N decided to overtake K by go-
Co., Ltd. 
ing port on an erroneous assumption that K was going in the 
v. 
same direction as N and was not an ?TI-coming ship. 
By about 
Sub-Lt. AYabinda 6-45 p.m. when K sighted N on the port bow the two ships were 
ChaA.avarti 
opposite each other near about the mid-line of the channel, the 
distance between the two being then a little more than a mile. 
N continued her port course and went over the mid-line into the 
wrong side of the channel and at about 6-48 p. m. the distance 
between the two ships was less than I a mile. K noticed at that 
moment that N was converging on her and accordingly in order 
to avoid a collision K turned to hard port and gave a signal to 
that effect. N, however, took starboard action to get back to the 
right side of the channel and get out of the way of K. At about 
6-49 p. m. finding that a collision was imminent the commander 
of N ordered full speed astern, but it was too late and a collision 
took place at about 6-51 p. m. 
The appellant, the owner of N, instituted a suit for damages 
against the respondent, who was one of the officers in charge of 
and responsible for the navigation of K, on the plea that the 
collision was caused by the negligent navigation of K. .The t~ial 
judge who had been assisted by nautical advisers, held that K 
wrongly altered her course at the moment when she did, and if 
any step had to be taken she should have altered not to port 
r 
but to starboard, and if any other action was necessary, she 
should have put her engines full speed astern. On appeal, the 
High Court, which also had the assistance of two assessors, 
-reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that 
I): should have anticipated that sooner or later N would correct 
her mistake and go to the starboard side of the channel and, 
therefore, as the "standing on" vessel, K should have kept her 
course and speed as required by Art. 21 of the Regulations of 
1910, made under the Merchant Shipping Act( 1894, and that if 
she had done so, there would have been no collision. 
As in the 
• 
lower courts, this Court also had the assistance of two assessors. 
Held, that K was just

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.