Velraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
damages - suit for damages and compensation--held, suit is for personal wrong and does not survive to legal representative.;the maxim, 'actio personalies moritur cum persona' does apply when the action is one for damages for personal wrong. in the present case, there is no denying the fact that the suit is one for damages on account of the personal injury and wrong done to the deceased.;the cause of action does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased.;appeal dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - hub lal air1926all610 .3. in our opinion, the law is well settled.c.m. lodha, c.j.1. this case comes up today for orders on an application by the legal representatives of the deceased appellants in place of velraj. they are his wife and son.2. velraj died on december 4, 1977, and this application has admittedly been made on march 13, 1978, after the expiry of limitation prescribed for the same. mr. makhtoor mal singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection that the application cannot be maintained in view of the fact that this appeal arises out of a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, which was dismissed by the trial court. it is urged that the right to sue for legal expenses or other losses caused to a person due to a malicious prosecution instituted against him is a personal right and it does not survive to the legal representatives of such person. in support of this contention reliance has been placed on g. jayaprakash v. state a.i.r. 1977 a.p. 20, punjab singh v. rumautar singh a.i.r. 1920 patna 841 and mahtab singh v. hub lal : air1926all610 .3. in our opinion, the law is well settled. the maxim, 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' does apply when the action is one for personal wrong. in the present case, there is no denying the fact that the suit is one for damages on account of the personal injury and wrong done to the deceased. in this view of the matter, we have no alternative but to accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal on the ground that the cause of action does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-appellant valraj.4. this appeal is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.