- (1.) These two appeals have been filed against the decree passed in suit No. 7 of 1957, which was filed by Smt. Maha Kunwar, plaintiff-respondent in each of appeals, for recovery of Rs. 12,500/- as compensation. The Court below has passed a decree against the two defendants jointly and severally for the aforementioned sum-with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. The defendants have filed separate appeals.
(2.) The plaintiff is the widow of one Deputy Mal and the mother of Shail Kumar and the grand-mother of Adesh Kumar. Om Parkash appellant is the owner of house No. 117, Mohalla Dalampura in the city of Meerut, abutting a public street. The house was in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and the Municipal Board, Meerut had given notice to Om Prakash in July, 1953 and on 5th April 1954, under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Om Prakash neither demolished the house, nor made necessary repair. The Municipal Board, Meerut also did not take any action under sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Act. On 2nd March, 1955, at about 12.30 p.m. Deputy Mal, accompanied by Shail Kumar and Adesh Kumar was passing through the public street abutting the house when it collapsed causing fatal injuries to Shail Kumar and Adesh Kumar who died on the spot and to Deputy Mal, who subsequently died in the hospital where he was taken for medical treatment. Maha Kunwar filed suit No. 7 of 1957 claiming Rs. 12,500/- by way of compensation both from Om Parkash and the Municipal Board, Meerut on account of the death of her husband and her son Shail Kumar.
(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants, who filed separate written statements. The pleadings of the parties give rise to the following issues, - 1. Whether the house of the defendant No. 2 was in a dangerous and ruinous stage at the time of accident as alleged by the plaintiff ? 2. Has the defendant No. 1 been grossly negligent in not getting the said house demolished ? 3. Has the defendant No. 2 been grossly negligent in not keeping the said house properly repaired and in good condition ? 4. Was the accident in question act of God as alleged by the defendant No. 1 ? If so to what effect ? 5. To what amount of damages if any is the plaintiff entitled and from which of the defendants. Under issue No. 4, the trial Court's finding is that there was no reason whatsoever to call the accident which took place a vis major or an act of God. This finding has not been challenged in this Court. Issues 1 and 3 were considered together and the finding of the Court below thereon is that the house was in a dangerous and ruinous condition at the time of the accident as alleged by the plaintiff and that it had reached this condition on account of gross negligence on the part of defendant No. 2 in not causing necessary repairs to it and thereby keeping it in a safe and proper condition. The nuisance caused by the dangerous and ruinous condition of the house was, therefore, obviously the result of the wilful default and negligence of defendant No. 2. Under issue No. 2 the finding of the Court below is that a clear breach of the provisions of Section 263 of the Act was committed by the defendant No. 1 by its grossly negligent behaviour in not getting the house demolished and allowing it to remain in danergous and ruinous condition. Under issue No. 5 the finding of the Court below is that both the defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff. Damages on account of the death of Deputy Mal was assessed at Rs. 8,000/- and of Shail Kumar at Rs. 4,500/-.;