IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 AS.No. 514 of 1997() -------------------- OS.81/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------- 1. T.M.SIDHIQUE, AZAD MANZIL, ERUMBOOZHIKKARA MURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. SAJITHA, D/o.SIDHIQUE OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------- 1. JOHN JACOB, S/o. JOHN VELIYIL, ERUMBOOZHIKKARA MURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. BHASURAN, S/o. MADHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, VAIKOM PRAYAR KARA, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 3. K.K.VELAPPAN, S/o. KESAVAN, KODAMMEL HOUSE, VALLAKOM KARA, VAIKOM NADUVILE VILLAGE. 4. KUNJAN PRAKASHAN, AMBALASSERIL, ERUMBOOZHIKKARA MURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE. 5. KUNJAN NARAYANAN, S/o. KUNJAN VALANKARIL, ITHILEL BHAGOM, ERUMBOOZHIKKARA MURI. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI V. G. ARUN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J ==================== A.S.No. 514 of 1997 ====================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.81/1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, are the appellants. Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages. The plaintiffs are the owners of 3 acres and 12 cents of wet land in Vadakkemuri Village in Vaikom Taluk which is part of the Padasekaram. Plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants alleging that the defendants illegally restrained them from reaping harvest and they destroyed sheaves of paddy by submerging the same in water and also stamped the same into the mud. These allegations were denied by the defendants. According to them the entire case was a fabricated one. On the side of the plaintiffs the first plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. An independent witness was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A8 proved and marked. On the side of defendants DW1 to DW5 were examined. Ext.B1 was proved and marked. Material evidence was brought out by putting leading questions on PW1. At one stage the plaintiffs took up a stand that the defendants obstructed reaping the harvest. At the time A.S.No.514/1997 2 of oral evidence the case was that the reaping started and when it was going on defendants entered into the paddy fields and stamped sheaves of paddies into the mud and thereafter they let water flow into the paddy field and soaked the entire cultivation. Since the paddy were submerged in the water for 4 days entire crops were destroyed. The trial court had noted that though PW1 deposed that all the defendants entered the paddy field, PW2, who, according to the defendants, was one of the persons who was engaged in the reaping harvest, did not speak about the presence of any of the defendants. According to him some people from the North came and prevented the workers from removing sheaves of paddy. The trial court had noted the material difference between the evidence of PW1 and 2. The trial court also took note of the variance between the pleadings and proof. It was noted that the defendants did not adduce evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the defendants. The trial court also considered the details in evidence of DW1 to 5. The only suggestion put to DW1 was that he was one among the persons who stamped the sheaves of paddy into the mud, which he denied. Only allegation levelled against DW1 was that he abeted the commission of mischief in A.S.No.514/1997 3 the plaintiff's paddy field. But at the time of cross examination of that witness questions were put to him to the effect that he himself committed mischief. DW4 was a cultivator of the padasekharam and DW3 is the owner of the western paddy filed adjoining the suit properties. The trial court discussed the evidence in detail and found that the entire case put forward by the plaintiffs was false and there is variance between pleadings and proof. At one stage PW1 deposed that at the time of harvest there was no water in the other paddy fields but at another stage he gave evidence to the effect that the defendants let water flow into the paddy fields of the plaintiffs so as to destroy the paddy. The plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the defendants. The findings of the court below are perfectly correct and does not call for interference. So I do not find any reason to admit this appeal and keep it pending. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE dvs