M.R. Rao Vs. M. Ganpathi Srinivas Kamath & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 915 of 1974
Petitioner: M.R. Rao
Respondent: M. Ganpathi Srinivas Kamath & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 915 of 1974
Judges: MURARI MOHON DUTT & K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 30, 1988
Head Note:
TORT
Wrongful loss caused to the plaintiff -The question whether the appellant was also involved in the tortious act causing loss to the plaintiff was pre- eminently a question of fact and in view of the concurrent findings of fact of the court below, the Court expressed inability to interfere with the decree passed against the defendants.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal at the instance of the defendant No.6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1972 of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore affirming those of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, dated September 28 1968 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of damages from the defendants including the defendant No.6 who is the present appellant before us.
2. The trial court came to the finding on appreciation of evidence that in view of the concerted act of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, the plaintiff was deprived of his goods. It was also held by the Trial Court that in the execution proceedings started against the plaintiff’s father at the instance of the defendant No.1, who was the assignee of the decree, the attachment of the plaintiff’s goods was illegal and the said defendants including the appellant had conspired together to cause loss of the goods to the plaintiff. Upon the said findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court affirmed the decree with a little modification as to the decretal amount.
3. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was wrongly held to be liable for the loss caused to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the appellant was only a witness to the seizure of the goods and did not act in any manner which would fasten any liability on him with regard to the loss caused to the plaintiff. The Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently come to the finding that the appellant was equally responsible for causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff along with the defendants No.1 to 4. The question whether the appellant was also involved in the tortious act causing loss to the plaintiff is pre-eminently a question of fact and, in view of the concurrent findings of fact, we are afraid, we are unable to interfere with the decree that has been passed against the defendants Nos.1 to 4 and the defendant No.6, who is the appellant.
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
1. This appeal at the instance of the defendant No.6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1972 of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore affirming those of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, dated September 28 1968 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of damages from the defendants including the defendant No.6 who is the present appellant before us.
2. The trial court came to the finding on appreciation of evidence that in view of the concerted act of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, the plaintiff was deprived of his goods. It was also held by the Trial Court that in the execution proceedings started against the plaintiff’s father at the instance of the defendant No.1, who was the assignee of the decree, the attachment of the plaintiff’s goods was illegal and the said defendants including the appellant had conspired together to cause loss of the goods to the plaintiff. Upon the said findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court affirmed the decree with a little modification as to the decretal amount.
3. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was wrongly held to be liable for the loss caused to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the appellant was only a witness to the seizure of the goods and did not act in any manner which would fasten any liability on him with regard to the loss caused to the plaintiff. The Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently come to the finding that the appellant was equally responsible for causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff along with the defendants No.1 to 4. The question whether the appellant was also involved in the tortious act causing loss to the plaintiff is pre-eminently a question of fact and, in view of the concurrent findings of fact, we are afraid, we are unable to interfere with the decree that has been passed against the defendants Nos.1 to 4 and the defendant No.6, who is the appellant.
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
