Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)

T.K.Muhammed Shafeeq vs The Manager

30. It is the case of the plaintiffs that A.S.Nos.541 & 550 of 1998 :30: Neelakantan was a harmless elephant reared and loved by Hindus in that locality and there was no circumstance warranting interference of police. We are unable to countenance the said arguments, in view of the judicial precedents on this point. It is to be remembered that this Court in Veeramani Chettiyar v. Davis and others [2012 (4) KLJ 375], relying on various judicial precedents, held that elephant is a dangerous wild animal (ferae nature). In our view, since the elephants are dangerous wild animals, it made no difference that a particular elephant is highly trained or harmless and the harmfulness of an offending animal has to be adjudged not by the particular training or habit, but by reference to general habit of the species to which it belonged.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.K.Muhammed Shafeeq vs The Manager

30. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Neelakantan was a harmless elephant reared and loved by Hindus in that locality and there was no circumstance warranting interference of police. We A.S.Nos.541 & 550 of 1998 :30: are unable to countenance the said arguments, in view of the judicial precedents on this point. It is to be remembered that this Court in Veeramani Chettiyar v. Davis and others [2012 (4) KLJ 375], relying on various judicial precedents, held that elephant is a dangerous wild animal (ferae nature). In our view, since the elephants are dangerous wild animals, it made no difference that a particular elephant is highly trained or harmless and the harmfulness of an offending animal has to be adjudged not by the particular training or habit, but by reference to general habit of the species to which it belonged.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1