IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 391 of 2005 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.9.2004 IN AS.NO.204/1998 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK (ADHOC) II, KOTTAYAM. REVN. PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- MARAVANTHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MARAVANTHURUTHU, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. OMANA, WIFE OF SREENIVASAN, MANALODIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 2. SURESH, S/O. SREENIVASAN, MANALODIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 3. SUMA, D/O. SREENIVASAN, MANALODIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, DIST. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE SRI.S.SUDARSANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.1095/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.391/2005 DISMISSED 18/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 391 OF 2005 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th January, 2008 O R D E R Respondents herein filed O.S.No.215 of 1995, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Vaikom against the revision petitioner Panchayat, claiming damages. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.13,500/- with interest. On appeal by the defendant Panchayat, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant has come up in Revision, challenging the decision of the court below. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they owned two acres of land in Sy.No.88/3 of Kulasekharamangalam Village. On the western side of the property, the road leading to Indo-American Hospital is situated. On 6.2.1995, without sending any notice to the plaintiffs/respondents, the defendant in the presence of the Secretary of the Panchayat, cut and removed a high yielding coconut tree from the property of the plaintiffs. It was contended that there was no necessity for the defendant to cut and remove the coconut tree. The act of the defendant was termed as bereft of bona fides. It was contended that the plaintiffs have lost an annual income of Rs.540/- on account of the cutting of the coconut tree. The loss sustained by the plaintiffs was assessed in the plaint at Rs.13,500/-, the amount being the income from the coconut tree for a period of 25 years. C.R.P. NO.391 OF 2005 :: 2 :: The husband of the first plaintiff made a complaint to the President of the Panchayat complaining that the tree was cut unauthorisedly. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Secretary of the Panchayat made a threat to cut and remove other trees standing in the property also. The plaintiffs were constrained, according to them, to file O.S.No.61 of 1995 in such circumstance. On 21.2.1995, a notice was sent to the Panchayat claiming compensation. No reply was sent and no amount was also paid by the defendant Panchayat. 3. The case put forward by the defendant is that on the western boundary of the property belonged to the plaintiffs, a coconut tree aged 60 years was standing in such a position causing threat to the pedestrians and the vehicular traffic. Several complaints were received from the public. The Secretary of the Panchayat made enquiries and conducted local inspection. The plaintiffs were asked to remove the obstruction caused by the coconut tree. On the failure of the plaintiffs to remove the obstruction and considering the urgency of the matter, the tree was cut and removed with the assistance of the police. 4. Before the trial court, second plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the Commissioner, who submitted Ext.A2 report in O.S.No.61 of 1995, was examined as PW2. No evidence was adduced on the side of C.R.P. NO.391 OF 2005 :: 3 :: the defendant. The trial court as well as the Appellate Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the act of the Panchayat in cutting and removing the coconut tree cannot be justified and proved. No document was produced by the defendant to show that any enquiry was conducted about the complaint received from the public. There is no evidence to indicate that the coconut tree was standing in such a way causing threat and danger to the public. No document was also produced to show that the plaintiffs were directed to cut and remove the coconut tree. More over, no reply was sent to the notice issued by the plaintiffs. Above all, no oral evidence was adduced by the defendant. The facts and circumstances established in the case by documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of PW2 would justify the conclusion that the defendant has unauthorisedly cut and removed the coconut tree. The trial court as well as the Appellate Court were fully justified in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. There is no ground for interference invoking jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revsion Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/