ABSTRACT
This article is divided into four parts. The first parts deals with the question “what is status”. The second part deals with legal status of Animals. In this part we have considered the question such as “Whether animal is a legal personality”. The judgment of the H.C. of Punjab & Haryana in case of Karnail Singh & others v. State of Haryana[1] held that there is nothing inherent in the concept of legal personality preventing its extension to animals. And further observed that, “the entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic are declared as legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. All the citizens throughout the State of Haryana are hereby declared persons in loco parentis as the human face for the welfare/protection of animals.”
The third part deals with legal status of Dead men. The maximActiopersonalismoritur cum persona– action dies with the death of the man. With his death his personality comes to an end. A dead man ceases to have any legal right or bound by any legal duty.[2] There are three things, more especially in respect of which the anxieties of living men extend beyond the period of their deaths, in such sort that the law will take notice of them. There are firstlyman’s body, secondly his reputation, and thirdly his estate.[3]In this part we have considered the questions such as “Whether dead men is a subject of defamation”. Further “Whether dead man bring action under tort”. Moreover “Whether dead man is a subject of dignified Burial”.
Last, but not the least, the fourth part of the article deals with the legal status of the unborn child. There is nothing in law to prevent a man from owning property before he is born.[4]His ownership is necessarily contingent, indeed,for he may never be born at all; but it is none the less a real and present ownership. Questions which are considered in this part are (i) “Whether child in its mother’s womb can be considered as born”. A child in its mother’s womb is for many purposes regarded by a legal fiction as already born, in accordance with the maxim, Nasciturus pro jam natohabetur. Further (ii) whether a child could succeed in tort after it was born on account of a deformity which was held to have been caused by a negligent pre-natal injury to mother. And third question is “If a child may recover compensation for injuries negligently inflicted before birth, should we say that the legal persona precedes the physical birth”.
[ I.] STATUS
Personality should be distinguished from status and capacity. ‘Status’ is a word which is given various meanings. Salmond[5] gives four meaning:
- Legal condition of any kind , whether personal or proprietary;
- Personal legal condition ,excluding proprietary relation;
- Personal capacities and incapacities as opposed to other elements of personal status;[6]
- Compulsory as opposed to conventional legal position.
Austin[7] agrees that the term cannot be used with exactness, but thinks that when for ease of exposition it is useful to separate a complex of rights and duties, of capacities and incapacities which specifically affect a narrow class, it is convenient to designate that complex by the term status. Very many factors may lead to the creation of a status. Thus sex, minority, and marriage are bound up with the problem of the family; illegitimacy shows the lack of proper family ties ; mental or bodily defect may lead to special treatment by the law . Caste, official position, or profession may create certain privileges or disabilities. Criminality may destroy liberty,or bankruptcy may divest of property. Foreign nationality, race, or colour may cause the law to distinguish a group.[8]
[ II.] LEGAL STATUS OF ANIMALS
In modern law, animals are not recognised as persons by any legal system. Therefore, they are not having legal rights and duties. However in the ancient Greek law animals and trees were tried in the court for their wrongful acts. Under the ancient Jewish Code ‘if an ox gore a man or women resulting in his or her death, then the ox was to stoned and its flesh was not to be eaten. In Hebrew Code, there is reference of trial of cocks, bulls, dogs and trees.[9] In middle age, in Germany a cock accused of contumacious crowing was solemnly placed in prisoner’s box. In 1688, Gaspard Bailly of Chamberg in Savoy published a volume including forms of indictment and pleading in animal trial. In all these cases, the animal is considered to be capable of sustaining duties and is therefore to this extend a legal person.
Modern law does not confer any rights and duties on the animals. Their interest are not recognised by the law. If an animal is hurt, it is not a wrong against that animal but against the owner of the animal or against the society. The master is held liable for the wrong done by the animals, which is strict ability. If it would be vicarious liability, the animal could be said to have a legal personality. Animals are considered only a kind of property and can’t hold property even through a human trustee. However, there are two cases in which animals may be said to possess legal rights:
- Cruelty to animals is a criminal offence.
- A trust for the benefit of particular classes of animals, as opposed to one for individual animals, is valid and enforceable as public and charitable trust.
Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 made punishable the act of subjecting animals to unnecessary pain of suffering through tortures, beats, kicks, over – rides, overloads[10], confines or causes to be confined any animal, so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal, solely with a view to provide entertainment or incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal[11], mutilates any animal or kills any animal by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner[12] and competitions wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting.[13]Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 have to be read along with Article 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal rights.[14]
Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a campaign led by World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), refers to five freedoms for animals, which find support in Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder to a great extent and they are for animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Part III of the Constitution of India.[15] Five internationally recognised freedoms for animals are[16] –
(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition;
(ii) freedom from fear and distress;
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
UNEP Biodiversity Convention (1992) “Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components. Based on eco-centric principles, rights of animals have been recognized in various countries. Protection of animals has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Germany by way of an amendment in 2002 when the words “and the animals” were added to the constitutional clauses that obliges ‘state’ to respect ‘animal dignity’. Therefore, the dignity of the animals is constitutionally recognised in that country.[17]
We have accepted and applied the eco-centric principles in T. N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India and Others[18] and in Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund – India v. Union of India and Others.[19]
Professor of Animal Welfare, D.M.Broom of University of Cambridge in his articles appearing in Chapter fourteen of the Book “Animal Welfare and the Law” Cambridge University Press (1989) says:
“Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one species to another, but it is reasonable to suppose that the pain felt by all of these animals is similar to that felt by man”.
In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagraja,[20]Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animals life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. “Life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour or dignity. All the animals have honour and dignity. Every species has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.
In the same case rights of animals were observed as constitutional rights and held that section 3 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Article 51-A(g) & (h) of the Indian Constitution guaranteed the right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering.
[ II.I ]Animal as juristic person
Jurisprudence by Paton, 3rd Edn. Page 349 and 350 says:
It has already been asserted that legal personality is an artificial creation of the law. Legal persons are all entities capable of being right-and-duty-bearing units – all entities recognised by the law as capable of being parties to legal relationship. Salmond said: ‘In legal theory, a person is any being whom having the attribute of rights and duties… …Legal personality may be granted to entities other than individual human beings, e.g. a group of human beings, a fund, an idol. Twenty men may form a corporation which may sue and be sued in the corporate name. An idol may be regarded as a legal persona in itself, or a particular fund may be incorporated. It is clear that neither the idol nor the fund can carry out the activities incidental to litigation or other activities incidental to the carrying on of legal relationships, e.g., the signing of a contract: and, of necessity, the law recognises certain human agents as representatives of the idol or of the fund.
In the case of ‘ShiromaniGurudwaraPrabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. ShriSomNath Das & others[21], it was observed by the Supreme Court that that the concept ‘Juristic Person’ arose out of necessities in the human development. Recognition of an entity as juristic person is for sub serving the needs and faith of society. The words “Juristic Person” denotes recognition of an entity as artificially created person in law.[22]
Thus, it is well settled and confirmed by the authorities on jurisprudence and Courts of various countries that for a bigger thrust of socio-political scientific development evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic person became inevitable. This may be any entity, living inanimate, objects or things. The concept of legal personality is a construct of the law. As such, it can be extended to animals, or to other objects or beings, if the law so chooses.
The obligations of human species towards animals are discussed in “Corpus JurisSecundum” under Volume III, page 1087, which states:-
“that the wild animals at large within its borders are owned by the State in its sovereign as distinguished from its proprietary capacity and neither such animals nor any part thereof are subject to private ownership except insofar as the State may choose to make them so.”
Keeping these point in view the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Karnail Singh & others v. State of Haryana[23] held that there is nothing inherent in the concept of legal personality preventing its extension to animals. And further observed that, “the entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic are declared as legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. All the citizens throughout the State of Haryana are hereby declared persons in loco parentis as the human face for the welfare/protection of animals.”
Trust for the benefit of animals – A charitable trust created for the promotion of public welfare and advancement of religion, not for a single animal is valid. The testator left funds in trust to provide for maintenance of his horses and dogs for as long as they should live, was held valid[24].
[ III. ] LEGAL STATUS OF DEAD MEN
If birth is necessary to create rights, so death, in general,ends rights.[25]
Ordinarily speaking, the personality of a human being may be said to commence existence on birth and cease to exist at death, and in general the law takes the same view. Dead men are not consider as persons in the eye of the law. They have laid down their legal personality with their lives, and are now as destitute of rights as of liabilities. They have no rights because they have no interests.They do not even remain the owners of their property until their successors enter upon their inheritance. For instance, the goods of an intestate,before the grant of letters of administration, were formerly vested in the bishop of the diocese, and are now vested in the judge of the court of probate, rather than left to the dead until they are in truth acquired by the living.[26]
Actiopersonalismoritur cum persona– action dies with the death of the man. With his death his personality comes to an end. A dead man ceases to have any legal right or bound by any legal duty.[27] Yet although all a man’s rights and interests perish with him, he does when alive concern himself much with that which shall become of him and his father is dead, does in some degree recognise and take account after a man’s death of his desires and interests when alive.[28] There is a question in law that whether infliction of death is a cause of action in tort or not. The Fatal Accidents Act 1846,provides a remedy for certain dependants in cases where the breadwinner has been killed. French law has no need of any specific statute,since the general principles of the code are wide enough to cover loss to A arising from negligent killing of B by the defendant.[29] The English rule that the infliction of death is not a tort to the person killed has been partially evaded by the grant of an action for loss of expectation of life which can be brought by the representative.[30] In French law many writers support the view that there is a transmissible action for instantaneous death, but this is still a matter of dispute.[31]
Kocourek suggests that if the infliction of death is regarded as a tort to the person killed (as it is in some American states), then we can explain this only by postulating that the legal persona survives death, for, since the wrongful act is that of causing death, the act is not complete until the victim is no longer living and, if at that moment legal personality ceases, no wrong has been done to any persona.[32] This is reminiscent of the famous argument in Hale’s Case that a man who committed suicide did not commit a felony during his life, for the felony was completed only when death resulted, and then of course he no longer existed.[33] It may possibly be in that in some systems a man’s estate is liable for defamatory matter in his will, although it was published only after he was no longer in being.[34] If a child may recover compensation for injuries negligently inflicted before birth?[35] If it is convenient to do so, there is no conclusive theoretical reason why the law should not adopt some such theory as Kocourek suggests. But it is the express theory of most systems that legal personality begins at birth and ends at death, however difficult it may be to reconcile this with some of the actual rules in force.
There are three things, more especially in respect of which the anxieties of living men extend beyond the period of their deaths, in such sort that the law will take notice of them. There are firstly man’s body, secondly his reputation, and thirdly his estate.[36]
- Man body;- by a natural illusion a living man deems himself interested in the treatment to be awarded to his own dead body. To what extent does the law secure his desires in this matter? A corpse is a property of no one. It cannot be disposed by the will or other instrument[37],and no wrongful dealing amount to theft.[38] The criminal law however,secures decent burial for all dead men, and the violation of a grave is a criminal offence.[39] “Every person dying in this country”, it has been judicially declared , “ has a right to Christian burial”. In Roman law an heir could sue for injuriaif an insult was offered to the body of the deceased at the funeral. But this was in some ways a direct insult to the heir himself.[40] French law grants a civil remedy to relatives, even when there is no specific intent to attack them, if they can prove either material or moral damages resulting from untrue statements concerning the dead.[41]Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code mandates punishment for committing crime which amounts to indignity to any human corpse.[42] Further in English law[43] as well as in Muslim law the violation of a grave is a criminal offence. Further the testamentary directions of a man as to the disposal of his body are without any binding force.[44] There are statutes which mandates the power of protecting it from the indignity of the anatomical uses.[45]
- His Reputation
The reputation of the dead receives some degree pf protection from the criminal law. A libel upon a dead man will be punished as misdemeanour. But only when its publication is in truth an attack upon the interests of living persons. The right so attacked and so defended is in reality not that of the dead , but that of his living decendants. To this extent and in this manner only ,has the maxim De mortius nil nisi bonum(dead have no rights and can suffer no wrong)obtained legal recognition and obligations.[46]
- His Estate
The desire of a dead men are allowed by the law to regulate the actions of the living is that of testamentary succession.For many years after a man is dead, his hand may continue to regulate and determine the disposition and enjoyment of the property which he owned while living.[47] So far as trust is concerned , English law provides the rule that permanent trust for maintenance of a dead man tomb is illegal and void and property cannot be tied up for this purpose.[48]This rule has been laid down in the case of Williams v. Williams,[49] where it was said that a corpse is the property of no one. It cannot be disposed of by will or any other instrument. It was further held in this case that even temporary trusts are neither valid nor enforceable. Its fulfilment being lawful not obligatory. In case of Mathu khan v. Veda Lavvai,[50]that worship at the tomb of a person is charitable and religious purpose amongst Muslims- hence such a trust is possible. In Saraswati v. Raja Gopal,[51] it was held that the worship at the Samadhi of a person,except in a community in which there is a wide-spread practice of raising tombs and worshipping thereat, is not a religious or charitable purpose according to Hindu Law and would not constitute a valid trust or endowment.[52]
A monk who enters a monastery is regarded in some systems as being ‘civilly dead’ and his property is distributed just as if death had in fact taken place.[53]Regarding the property of the dead man the law carries out the wishes of the deceased e.g., a will made by him regarding the disposal of his property. This is done to protect the interest of those who are living and who would benefit under the will. This is subject to the rule against perpetuity as well as law of 1882 testamentary succession. In India Section 14 of the transfer of property Act incorporates the rule against perpetuities which forbid tieing down of property for an indefinite time thereby making it inalienable. Section 14 of Transfer of Property Act restrains the power of creating future interests by providing in the rule against perpetuities that such interest must arise within certain limits. The rule of Perpetuity looks to the date at which the contingent interest will vest, if it vests at all, and holds it to be void as ‘perpetuity if this date is too remote’.[54]
Similarly, Section 1 and 4 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 forbids the creation of a will whereby vesting of property is postponed beyond the lifetime of one or more persons and the minority period of the unborn person.[55]
[ IV. ] THE LEGAL STATUS OF UNBORN PERSONS
As we have seen that the dead possess no legal personality,it is otherwise with the unborn. There is nothing in law to prevent a man from owning property before he is born.[56]His ownership is necessarily contingent, indeed, for he may never be born at all; but it is none the less a real and present ownership. A man may settle property upon his wife and the children to be born of her. Or he may die intestate , and his unborn child will inherit his estate. Yet the law is careful lest property should be too long withdrawn in this way from the uses of living men in favour of generations yet to come; and various restrictive rules have been established to this end. No testator could now direct his fortune to be accumulated for a hundred years and then distributed among his descendants.[57] A child in its mother’s womb is for many purposes regarded by a legal fiction as already born, in accordance with the maxim, Nasciturus pro jam natohabetur. In the words of Edward Coke: “The law is many cases hath consideration of him in respect of the apparent expectation of his birth”. Thus in the law of property there is a fiction that a child en ventresa mere is a person in being for the purpose of (i) the acquisition of property by the child itself , or (ii) being a life chosen to form part of the period of the rule against perpetuities.[58] Under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code, the infliction of a pre-natal injury on a child, which is capable of being born alive and which prevents it from being so could amount to the offence of child destruction.[59] Section 416 of Criminal Procedure Code Provides that if a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed, and may, if it thinks fit, commute the sentence to imprisonment for life.[60]
Under Section 13 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, property can be transferred for the benefit of the unborn person by way of trust.[61] Similarly, Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for the creation of prior interest before the unborn person may be made the owner of property- corporeal or incorporeal , but no property will be deemed to be vested in the unborn person unless and until he is born alive. In Hindu Law also, a child in the womb of the mother is deemed to be in existence for certain purposes. Under Mitakshara law such a child has its interest in coparcenary property.[62] Article 906 of the French Code permits the transfer of property in favour of an unborn. But according to Mohammedan Law a gift to a person not in existence is void.[63]
A child in the womb of the mother is considered to be a person even under the law of torts. It has been held in a Canadian case[64]that a child could succeed in tort after it was born on account of a deformity which was held to have been caused by a negligent pre-natal injury to mother. In an African case,[65] it was held that a child can succeed in tort after it is born on account of a deformity caused by pre-injury to his mother. In India,as well as in England, under the law of tort an infant cannot maintain an action for injuries sustained while on ventresa mere.[66] However, in England damages can be recovered under Fatal Accident Act, 1846, for the benefit of a posthumous child. In short, it can be concluded that an unborn person is endowed with legal personality for certain purposes.
[ V.] CONCLUSION
The status is necessary for certain privileges offered by the law. Status can also be conferred through personifying an entity like animals,forest , rivers etc. The life which is embedded in the Article 21 is not only the animal life but it also includes those things which affecting the life of a human being. Recently P&H High Court (Supra) observed that the entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic are declared as legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person.Like animals dead men do enjoys certain privileges such as right to dignified burial, right to sue in case of defamation if such libel or slander is affecting the alive family members of the dead. But dead men cannot sue for death resulted due to the commission of the tort. Further law also recognises the wishes of the dead such for eg. Divesting of property according the will of dead.
Law also grants certain rights to the unborn child. Section 13 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it provides that property can be transferred for the benefit of the unborn person by way of trust. Further a unborn child can succeed in criminal law if his death resulted from Under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code, the infliction of a pre-natal injury on a child, which is capable of being born alive and which prevents it from being so could amount to the offence of child destruction. Section 416 of Criminal Procedure Code Provides that if a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed, and may if it thinks fit, commute the sentence to imprisonment for life.
[1]2019 SCC OnLine P&H 704.
[2] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 1-2 (9th ed. 2012).
[3]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 300-01 (12th ed. 1966).
[4]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 303-04 (12th ed. 1966).
[5] P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 239-240 (12TH ed. 1966).
[6] Status is in the main a matter of personal capacity’: per Scott L.J., Re Luck’s Settlement Trusts, [1940] Ch. 864 at 889.
[7] G.W. PATON, A TEXTBOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE 398-399 ( 4th ed. 2007).
[8]Id.
[9]PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 175-178 (9th ed. 2012).
[10]Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1992 (India) § 11.1. a.
[11]Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1992 (India) § 11.1. m.
[12]Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1992 (India) § 11.1. l.
[13]Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1992 (India) § 11.1. o.
[14] Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagraja, (2014) 7 SCC 1947 (India).
[15]Id.
[16]Guidelines of World Health Organisation of Animal Health (OIE), Cha. 7.1.2.
[17] Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagraja., (2014) 7 SCC 1947 ( India).
[18](2012) 3 SCC 277. (India).
[19](2013) 8 SCC 234. (India).
[20](2014) 7 SCC 1947 (India).
[21]AIR 2000 SC 1421.
[22]ShiromaniGurudwaraPrabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri SomNath Das & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1421.
[23]2019 SCC OnLine P&H 704.
[24] Penttingall v. Penttigall, (1842) LJ Ch 176.
[25] G.W. PATON, A TEXTBOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE 395-396 (4thed. 2007).
[26]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 300-01 (12th ed. 1966).
[27] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 1-2 (9th ed. 2012).
[28]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 301 (12th ed. 1966).
[29] G.W. PATON, A TEXTBOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE 397-398 (4th ed. 2007).
[30]Id.
[31]Id.
[32]Id.
[33]Hales v. Petit 1 Plowden 253.
[34] G.W. PATON, A TEXTBOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE 398 (4th ed. 2007).
[35]Id.
[36]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 300-01 (12th ed. 1966).
[37]Id..
[38]Id.
[39]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 301-02 (12th ed. 1966).
[40] Broom v. Ritchie (1905), 6 Fraser 942, cited F.P Walton, op. cit. 2.
[41] See F.P. Walton, 9J.Comp. Leg. (1927), 1 at 10-11.
[42] Section 297 of I.P.C. lays down , “Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulchre, or any place set apart from the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both”.
[43] In R v. Price , (1884) 12 QBD it was held every person dying in England has a right to Christian Burial.
[44] Williams v. Williams (1882) 20Ch.D. 659.
[45] Anatomy Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 75) , S. 7.
[46]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 301-02 (12th ed. 1966).
[47]Id.
[48] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 178-179 (9th ed. 2012).
[49](1882) 20 Ch.D. 659.
[50] 34 Mad 12.
[51](1954) SCR 277.
[52]Id.
[53] G.W. PATON, A TEXTBOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE 394-395 (4thed. 2007).
[54] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 178-179 (9th ed. 2012).
[55] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 179-180 (9th ed. 2012).
[56]P J FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE 303-04 (12th ed. 1966).
[57]Id.
[58]Id.
[59] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 177-178 (9th ed. 2012).
[60]Id.
[61]Id.
[62]Id.
[63]Id.
[64]Montreal Tramways v. Leville , ( 1933) 4 DLR 337.
[65] N.O. v. Santam Ins. Co. Ltd., (1963) 2SA 254.
[66] PROF. NOMITA AGGARWAL, JURISPRUDENCE 177-178 (9th ed. 2012).
