elephant by electrocution was seriously disputed by the respondents No.3 & 4. They had also disputed that the income as shown would attract payment of the income tax but no such material has been filed with the plaint. That apart, having referred to the testimony of Dr. Tapash Kanti Ghosh [PW-6] in GR case No.61 of 2008, those respondents have clearly stated that the said Veterinary Surgeon has stated that the cause of death of the said elephant by live electric shock was suggestive, but not conclusive. The said Veterinary Surgeon did not find any injury on the body of the elephant. If the electrocution at all occurred, should there have been burn injuries on its body. The performance quotient of the said elephant has been denied. In Para-18 of the written statement, those respondents have categorically stated that for death of the elephant no negligence or recklessness can be attributed to the respondents No.3 & 4. They have denied the claim of plaintiff-appellant about the lifespan of the elephant and its earning capacity etc. The ownership of the elephant, according to those respondents, are to be proved as per Section 40,41 and 42 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The cause of action according to them cannot commence from the date of notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC but strictly from the date of death i.e. 09.05.2008. The suit according to them is liable to be dismissed. The other respondents did not file any written statement.
