DANTULURI LAKSHMINARASIMHARAJU Vs. EMANI SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1955-9-23
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 09,1955

DANTULURI LAKSHMINARASIMHARAJU Appellant
VERSUS
EMANI SATYANARAYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LANE V. COTTON [REFERRED TO]
STONE V. CARTWRIGHT [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BOMMA DEVARA V. PUTMAN [REFERRED TO]
WEIR V. BARNET [REFERRED TO]
MAYANDI V. MCQUHAE [REFERRED TO]
MAYANDI V. MCQUHAE [REFERRED TO]
TRUSTEES OF THE HARBOUR V. BEST AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT LOCAL BOARD,POONA V. VISHNU [REFERRED TO]
MUTHAIYA CHETTIARV. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PADMANABHUNI V. DISTRICT BOARD,KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
ATHIMANNIL MUHAMMAD V. MALABAR DISTRICT BOARD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal raises a question relating to the interpretation of section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The appellant is the defendant to the action brought by one Satyanarayana claiming a sum of Rs.1,000 as damages for wrongful act said to have beem committed by the defendant. The suit is based on the allegation that the defendant removed earth from the plaintiff's site in order to have a road laid, covered a well within that site with debris and also had some stone steps thereon removed resulting in damages to the tune of Rs.1,000. The answer to the suit, inter alia was that the suit is barred under section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act.
(2.)The several issues raised by the trial Court reflect the respective contentions of the parties and they are :
"(1) Whether the defendant is not liable to be sued in his personal capacity and the suit is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the defendant removed earth from the plaintiff's site ? (3) Whether the defendant covered up plaintiff's well with debris ? (4) Whether the defendant removed plaintiff's steps ? (5) Whether the channel dug caused any damage to plaintiff ? (6) To what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled ? (7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?"

(3.)The material facts may be stated in brief. Under the Rural Development Programme, the Government proposed to give contributions to the Local Boards, inter alia, for laying and maintaining roads. There was a road passing through Uratla village to which the parties belonged which needed urgent repairs. A part of the road running through the village vested in the Panchayat Board of Uratla of which the 1st defendant was the President at the relevant time. The concerned District Collector through the Firka Development Officers proposed to contribute a sum of Rs. 500 for effecting repairs to this road provided the Panchayat Board contributed Rs. 300 and also undertook to do it itself instead of entrusting it to a contractor. The Panchayat Board accepted this proposal in a resolution dated 18th October, 1948. The resolution also directed the President to carry out the work. In pursuance of this, the President engaged some work-men to do the work. As this needed some earth, permission was obtained from one Venkataraju who had stacked some earth on a site belonging to the plaintiff. In removing this mound of earth, the work-men seemed to have dug below ground level. This coupled with the other acts mentioned in the plaint are said to have resulted in damages estimated at Rs.1,000.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.