IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1764 of 2002() ---------------------- OS.366/1993 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: DEFENDANTS ---------------------------- 1. ULAHANNAN JOHN, PUTHENPURACKAL, UZHAVA MURI, VAYALAR KIZHAKKE VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. M.A.JOSEPH, DO. DO. 3. ELIKUTTY JOHN, DO. DO. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF ---------------------- JOSEPH S/O. VARKEY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUMMURI, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.V.J.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1764 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants in O.S. No.366 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. The parties are closely related family members. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the defendants by way of damages and Rs.100/- towards notice charges. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants trespassed into his property at 8.30 p.m. on 6.6.1992 and committed damages to the tune of Rs.1,500/- by destroying coconut and other trees standing thereon. It is contended by the defendants that the present suit was instituted as the plaintiff is on inimical terms with them and that they have not committed any waste in the property and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 3. Though the stake involved is only Rs.1,500/-, the matter was C.R.P. NO.1764/2002 2 seriously contested by both sides. The plaintiff and four other witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on his side. On the side of the defendants DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. 4. The incident alleged took place on 6.6.1992 at 8.30 p.m. The trial court appreciated the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A13 and entered the finding that such an incident had happened on the said day. The trial court also examined as to whether the defendants caused damages as alleged and concluded that the defendants jointly destroyed six coconut saplings one softwood tree, two arecanut trees and four plantain trees. The court below accepted the value of the trees as contended by the plaintiff and held that the coconut trees would fetch Rs.200/- each, the arecanut trees would fetch Rs.100/- each and the softwood tree and the plantains would fetch Rs.20/- each. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the court below is illegal and hence, the impugned judgment requires interference. I find that the court below considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and rightly concluded that the defendants were responsible and liable for the C.R.P. NO.1764/2002 3 damages caused to the improvements in the property. At the same time, the value fixed as admitted and demanded by the plaintiff is not fair and proper. Accordingly, I refix the damages caused to the improvements in the property at Rs.1000/- The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is modified . The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,100/- from the defendants with 6% interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1764/2002 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1764/2002 O R D E R 29th MAY, 2008