Negligent excavation without safety precautions renders a property owner liable for structural damages to adjacent buildings.

The Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for damages against the Appellant (Defendant No. 2) and her husband (Respondent No. 2), alleging that the Appellant’s negligent excavation for the reconstruction of her adjacent property in October 2014 caused severe structural damage to the Respondent's house.

The Respondent claimed that the flooring and roof developed cracks and became uninhabitable due to the lack of safety measures during digging.

A Government-approved Valuer (PW-3) assessed the damage at Rs. 3,50,000/-.

The Appellant contended that the damage was due to heavy rains and the old age of the Respondent's building.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 3,50,000/- with 10% interest p.a. against the Appellant.

The Appellant challenged this decree under Section 96 of the CPC.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest as claimed?

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding appeals from original decrees.

It further relied on the principles of the Law of Torts relating to negligence, specifically the duty of care owed by a property owner to take "requisite precautions" and "safety measures" during excavation to prevent the withdrawal of lateral support or structural damage to adjoining properties.

The court observed that the Appellant admitted in cross-examination to constructing a three-story building and digging a basement without taking any safety precautions to protect the Respondent's adjacent structure.

The court rejected the testimony of the Appellant's expert (DW-3), noting that his inspection was superficial (viewed only from an adjacent terrace) and lacked photographic evidence.

DW-3 also admitted that digging beyond 4-5 feet without safety measures likely causes damage to neighboring buildings.

In contrast, the court found the Respondent’s Valuer (PW-3) credible, as his report (Ex. PW-2/1) was based on a thorough physical inspection and supported by photographs (Ex. PW-2/2) confirming that the cracks were recent and caused by the excavation.

The court concluded that the Respondent successfully proved the damage was a direct consequence of the Appellant's negligent construction.

It held that the Appellant was liable for damages due to proven negligence in construction.

The Respondent is entitled to recover Rs. 3,50,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @10% p.a.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.