• I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Present: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Sukumaran. Tuesday, the 15th January 1985/25th Pousha 1906. S.A. No. 7 of 1980 B A.S. No. 183 of 1977 of the Sub Court, Trichur. o.s. No. 105 of 1974 of the Principal MunsUf's Court, Trichur. Appellant:- Appellant - Plaintiff. Thressia, W/o. Pulukiyil Mathu, aged 55 years, Killannoor Village, Trichur Talk. By Advs. M/s. M.R. Parameswaran,& M.N. Ravindran. Reseondents:- Respondents - Defendants. 1. The State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Trivandrum. 2. Prabhakran, Contractor, residing at Moorkanikara, Mulayam Village, Trichur Taluk. ByA&vs. - R1 - Govt. Pleader. R2 - M/s. .N.P. Samuel, T.K. Chinnan & K. Mathews Mathai. This second appeal having been finally heard on 15-1-1985, the Court on the same day delivered the following: r . I (S\&kusaaran~ -. 1J. ) -------- ---- .s.A. rlO. 7 of 980 - a - - za z ; t m m t ta g UGM NT The second appeal was tenaciously argued by counsel for the appellant. ;:;,r-i~ K-':atht!'Wii> J. r,Jedumpara. The pr:incip.l.es of law gat.'lerable from judicial deciaiona in J!Llands v. Pletcher., (l8b8) r...R. 3 H.l.,. 330 OiOuse of LordS}.- and 17 were pl.aced in the course of the arguments so adVanc::ea. 2. The suit was one for aamages cl.aimed by the p.J.a..1.nt.itf t.owan..a the cost of repa.tring a cow shed and other expenses wen hat ieu ii iae A,Oun, had an influx of ml.Id ancl e.U:-'i::.h When the w?te"r flowing tbro~h the adjacent irrigation canal caused such flow ef mud end earh in August-s@peter 1973, Though a claim had been made £or the damages sustaJ.ned by her when repair works wen carr.i.eo out. .by the work.era st.anding .in her property., that has been rightly abanaoned. J. 'fhe court.e bel.ow have approo.1atea the evJ.dence., which consist.ea of the evidence of Pis, l and 2 and s, 1 and 2. The plaiuti::tf had suaoned the watchman of the canal to give evidence in t.he case but had, for •strange ) reason' as n.ot.&d by the court .be.l.ov omitted toexair.J.ne him. ,, ui,2 the Asst. Engineer gave evidence that during the rainy season water i& not. let. out. through tne cana.l. ThJ.a evi- dence was believed by the eou.rt~ below. If t.hat. be o the version of the plaintiff about the manner in which she hc:-«i teen danmifiea, would not. be probable. 'l'he "It. is in evidenee that. there as heavy rains and um report. of the officers found in BX. al file also go t.o show that the breach took place due w neavy rain.* The lower appe.llit.e court also advert.eel to var.ious cireum- stances ineiuing the discrepancies in t.l'Mt c.iat.es of the occuence of the breech of the canal as seen from the evidence of I#il. Te admission of P.2 that the ca:al water was let out only for pacidy cultivation was also referred to by the lower appe.l.lata court. The evidence of D.ii.2 was believed .. The court.a below felt that they could not piace any reliance on the oralteatJ.mony of 4, ssentiaiiy, therefore, the question turned on the appreciation of evidence in th& ca:;e. In th4tt. area, t.he jurisdiction of the second appellate court is extremel.y limit.ea. rt cannot. oe said that the apprecJ.at.ion of evi.uence undertaken ;.;y the court.a below is perverse or· tot.ally unreasonable. I am inclined to agree with tll8 approach and appreciation of the evidence in the case as raao.e 'by tboae courts • .even if anotherview is possible, tnat. is not sufficient. to attract t.he Juriac:U.ction of this Court in second appeal. 3, In vie of te airove, ? contentions which had been forcily put forwzgd, oaricuiarly on he legal aspects, would uot. ari.ii>G in t.h,.;;: .atl:!COnd appeal. Too aecond appeal is therefore dismisss3 out ithou lsy orieer as to costs Sd/- K. sukuma.ran, Judge. /.['rue copy/