Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and Decree, dated 2.2.2001 in A.S.No.20 of 2000, passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.8.1999 in O.S.No.13019 of 1996, passed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Defendant is the Appellant. 2. The Respondents/Plaintiffsfiled the Suit seeking for judgment and Decree directing the Appellant/Defendant to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) for the death of their family members, namely, Baby Revathy; Baby K. Bhavani and Miss. M. Ranjani; due to the compound wall collapse on 31.10.1990. 3. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they were living in a hut at No.9, Begum Sahib Street, Third Lane, Pukki’s Garden, Thousand Lights, Madras-6 and city of Madras experienced heavy rains from 26.10.1990 to 31.10.1990 and due to the rain, 40 meter long rear compound wall of the office of the Respondent collapsed and fell in a row of huts abutting it around noon on 31.10.1990 and due to the wall collapse, the minor daughters of the first Plaintiff, namely, Baby Revathy, aged about 6 years, Baby Bhavani, aged about 4 years, died on 31.10.1990 itself and the Second Plaintiff’s daughter Miss M. Ranjini, aged about 18 years, also died due to said wall collapse. It is further stated in the Plaint that due to utter callousness on the part of the Defendant in leaving the compound wall so weak and unprotected, it has collapsed and the death of the family members of the Plaintiffs was only due to the negligence on the part of the Defendant in not maintaining its property with proper care. The Plaintiffs have further stated that they sent letter dated 25.2.1991, followed by Advocate notice dated 18.5.1991 to the Defendant, calling upon them to pay suitable compensation, but no reply was received and hence, the Suit. 4. The Defendant filed Written Statement, stating that due to incessant monsoon rain during the last week of October 1990, the compound wall of the Defendant fell on the other side and the Plaintiffs and others had put up huts unauthorizedly near the compound well and also plugged the water drain holes of the compound wall and therefore, the drain water could not go out and consequently the stagnated water collapsed the compound wall. It is further stated by the Defendant that they are periodically maintaining the building and walls, etc. and there is no negligence on their part. The Defendant has further stated that the Suit is barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The Trial Court framed two issues and the Plaintiffs examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A17 on their side and the Defendant examined D.W.1-Balakrishnan and did not mark any document on its side. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the compound wall had collapsed on account of negligence on the part of the Defendant in not maintaining it properly and the First Plaintiff is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each for the death of minor daughters Revathy and Bhavani and the Second Plaintiff is entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the death of her 18 year old daughter Miss M. Ranjani and the Plaintiffs are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- with proportionate costs. Aggrieved over the judgment and Decree, the Defendant preferred Appeal and the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal, with costs. Challenging the same, the Defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit. 6. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(1) Whether unauthorized occupants of a property can claim compensation from the owner of the adjacent property? (2) Whether a wrong doer can seek compensation from a neighbour for the consequences of his own wrong?” 7. Heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 8. Admittedly, the First Plaintiff is the mother of minor R. Revathy, aged about 6 years; minor K. Bhavani, aged about 4 years and the Second Plaintiff is the mother of Miss. M. Ranjani, aged about 18 years. the family of the Plaintiffs have put up hut abutting the rear compound wall of the Defendant and there was incessant monsoon rain during the last week of October, 1990 and the 40 meters long rear compound wall of the Defendant fell on a row of huts abutting it, resulting in the death of minors Revathy, Bhavani and Miss. M. Ranjani. 9. M. Ranjani. 9. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the compound wall was not properly maintained by the Defendant and it had not taken any step to remove the stagnated water inside the compound wall, which resulted in the wall collapse and it is liable to compensate for the loss of lives for its negligent act. Both the Plaintiffs examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked 17 documents on their side, which included Post-mortem Certificates, legal Heirship Certificates and the Complaint lodged in the Police about the accident etc. in their oral testimonies, both the witnesses have categorically stated that the rear compound wall was in a dilapidated condition and the Defendant has not repaired the same and their testimonies have not been challenged during cross-examination and remain unrebutted. 10. The contention of the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant is that the Plaintiffs and other persons have put up huts unauthorisedly and they had plugged the water drain holes of compound wall and hence, the drain water could not go out, resulting in water stagnation and the compound wall got collapsed and there was no negligence on their part. The Defendant has examined its officer as D.W.1 and it is his testimony in chief-examination that the Defendant took proper care in maintaining the compound wall. It is relevant to point out that in his cross-examination, he has admitted the stagnation of water inside the compound wall during monsoon rain in the last week of October 1990. Though it is stated that the drainage holes have been plugged by the Plaintiffs and others, no evidence was adduced by the Defendant to show the same. Even if it is so, the Defendant should have taken proper steps to drain the rain water collected inside the compound wall and that was not done. 11. The finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the act of the Defendant in allowing the rain water to stagnate inside the compound wall is the negligent act, is correct and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 12. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Appellant further contends that the Plaintiffs themselves unauthorisedly put up huts and they cannot claim compensation for the compound wall collapse. This contention is devoid of merit. 12. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Appellant further contends that the Plaintiffs themselves unauthorisedly put up huts and they cannot claim compensation for the compound wall collapse. This contention is devoid of merit. There is an obligation on the owner of the premises for the safety of the structures which he keeps and if the structures fell into disrepair, the owner is liable to anyone who is injured or died by reason of the disrepair. The law is well settled in this regard. (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati and others, AIR 1966 SC 1750 ). 13. In the present case, the Courts below have found the rear compound wall collapsed causing loss of lives, was exclusively under the ownership and control of Defendant and there is evidence to show that the collapse was due to stagnation of water inside the compound wall for more than a week during the monsoon period and the negligence of the Defendant is manifest. The Lower Appellate Court also rightly found that the Suit having been filed within two years from the date of death of persons killed in the accident, is not barred by the limitation on account of Article 82 of the Limitation Act. The quantum of compensation awarded for loss of lives, is just and reasonable. The substantial questions of law are answered against the Appellant. 14. There are no merits in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, with costs. DECREE This Second Appeal coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of first instance and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Dhamodharn, Senior Central Government Panel Counsel, on behalf of the Appellant and of Mr. M.L. Denis, Advocate for the Respondent, this Court doth order and decree that the decree of the Lower Appellate Court be, and hereby is confirmed and this Second Appeal dismissed. Memorandum of Costs Rs. P. Respondent’s (Plaintiffs) costs … … Stamp for Vakalatnama … … Advocate’s fee on Rs. F.C. Not Received … … Translation and Printing/Typing charges … … Nil