IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No.107 of 2002. Date of decision:16.04.2009. Smt.Chinti Devi …Appellant Versus Sh.Babu Ram Sharma & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, dismissing suit for recovery of Rs.2,25,000/-, instituted by them. The plaintiffs had pleaded that they were the owners in possession of the suit land from which land defendant No.1 removed trees which were the individual property of the plaintiffs. The allegation was that defendant No.1 had moved “a false application before defendant No.3, Divisional Forest Officer, Nurpur, where the thumb impressions of the plaintiff(s) have 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 been faked and under the guise of acting on authority, the “khair” trees standing on the land were removed”. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds, but the details are not being gone into as the crucial issues for determination are, “(i) whether the plaintiff(s) authorized defendant No.1 to fell “khair” trees and that the thumb impression of the plaintiff(s) was “faked” and (ii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit amount?”. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence found that there was no amount due and outstanding from the defendants. PW-3 Santokh Singh, who is general attorney of the plaintiffs, tried to support the allegations as made in the plaint. The plaintiffs-appellants, did not appear as witnesses in support of their case nor was there any explanation coming forth from them and the reasons as to why they absented themselves from appearing. This fact assumes crucial importance as one of the vital allegations is that of fraud levelled against the defendants accusing them of taking the thumb impression of the plaintiff(s), and that no authority had been given to defendant No.1 to move any application before the Forest Authorities etc. In these circumstances, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the plaintiffs that in case they had appeared in the witness box, their evidence would have been fatal to their own cause which was propagated. 3 These facts apart, learned trial Court also holds that the land belongs to the plaintiffs and that the money has been paid to the plaintiffs. An appraisal of the evidence on issues No.1 and 2, which have been paraphrased above, shows that there is no evidence worth the name which would establish that the permission obtained from the State Government was faked or that no money has been paid to the plaintiffs. In- fact, there is nothing on the record to establish the value of the trees for which compensation is claimed. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 16, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.