IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 675 of 2000() -------------------- OS.127/1993 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): (PLAINTIFF): -------------------------------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, SON OF KOOTTAPULAKKIL KRISHNAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH, SRI.ANISH S.AMBADY, SMT.BIJIMOL JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): (DEFENDANTS): ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHUNNI, SON OF ANDALADI MANAPADI RAMAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.OL.KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. GOPALAN, SON OF ANDALADI MANAPADI RAMAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O.KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. KUMARAN, SON OF ANDALADI MANAPADI RAMAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O.KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. RAMANKUTTY, SON OF KORANGANMARIL CHANGAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, PERORKARA DESOM, P.O.KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. KUNHADIKUTTY, SON OF VALLIDAMBANMARIL CHANGAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ..2.... AS.NO.675/2000 6. MOHANAN, SON OF VALLIDAMBANMARIL CHANGAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, P..O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. MANIKANDAN, SON OF VAZHATHODI VALIYAVEETTIL MANIKKAN MOOPPAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALLAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. KALIDASAN, SON OF VAZHATHODI VALIYAVEETTIL MANIKKAN MOOPPAN, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. MURALI, SON OF MELEPPALLIYALIL LEELA AMMA, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 10. VENU, SON OF MELEPPALLIYALIL LEELA AMMA, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM, ANDALADI DESOM, P.O. KALLADIPATTA, VIA. PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 11. DASAN, SON OF PARAYANMARIL VASU, KARAKKAD AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. KARAKKAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 12. RAMACHANDRAN, POOKATTITI RAJAGOPALAN, NETHRIMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, 13. SATHEEESAN, SON OF MELEDATH UNNI NAIR, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN, SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES) SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.675 OF 2000 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam in O.S.No.127/1993. The suit is one for damages. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants formed an unlawful assembly on 27.7.1992 and trespassed into his residential property, destroyed the same and even put country bombs causing extensive damages to the house. According to the plaintiff, they have destroyed 23 plantains, 8 coconut trees and 3 mango trees situated in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.50,000/= as damages. 2. On the other hand, the defendants would contend that there was no such incident on 27.7.1992 as contended by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the suit to wreck vengeance on the defendants. It is also contended that the plaintiff was residing in the house belonging to his mother and that the plaint schedule property was in a neglected condition which was exposed to rain and as a result of : 2 : A.S.NO.675 OF 2000 which, a portion of that had collapsed. It is also their case that the plaintiff was a tapper under Sri. Rajan and he was involved in very many criminal cases. 3. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and considering Exts. A1 to A3(a), B1, C1 and C2 came to the conclusion that the suit is liable to be dismissed and hence dismissed the suit. It is against that, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The short point is that whether the defendants had trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 27.7.1992 and has caused damages as stated. The contention of the defendants is that of a total denial. A criminal case was registered as S.T.No.504/1993 and it was tried by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi and it had ended in acquittal. The said case was only against 6 persons and not against 13 persons. Admittedly even as per the version of the plaintiff, he has not seen the incident. So he is not an eye witness. 5. PW2 is only examined to prove the photographs and therefore his evidence is also not very much helpful to decide : 3 : A.S.NO.675 OF 2000 the question. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Changan had seen the incident and he was being examined as a witness. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he is not examined. It has also come out in evidence that the plaintiff was involved in a criminal case for assaulting and stabbing one Ramachandran and that has ended in conviction against him. So all is not well with the case of the plaintiff. There are no absolute materials to show that the defendants had trespassed into the plaint schedule property and had committed mischief and other destructions as alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore the materials lack total evidence and so the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. So, the judgment and decree of the trial court do not warrant any interference and therefore the same requires no interference therefore the appeal is dismissed without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : A.S.NO.675 OF 2000 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.675 OF 2000 ............................................. 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T : 5 : A.S.NO.675 OF 2000