IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4711 of 2007 Between: Katam Mankala Rao .. Petitioner AND Parnam China Gantaiah .. Respondent ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dated 24-07-2007 in S.C. No.78 of 2004. The suit was filed claiming a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization and costs from the revision petitioner herein alleging that the respondent is the owner of dry land of Ac.2-77 cents in R.S. Nos.175/1, 175/2 and 175/3 of Pothepalli village, while the revision petitioner is the owner of tractor and trailor Nos. AP 27A 6522 and AP 27A 6523 supplying loose soil excavating from the lands with the permission of the land owners by paying Rs.50/- per truck and sold at Rs.150/- per truck. The respondent claimed that the revision petitioner got the loose soil from his land excavated in May and June, 2004 without his consent and without paying for its value and on coming to know about the same, the respondent claimed to have questioned the revision petitioner and got a panchayat conducted before Kondapalli Ram Balaji, Kondapalli Naga Venkata Ramanuja Rao, Thota Satyanrayana, Peddeti Rattaiah and Gudiseva Venkateswara Rao of Chilakalapudi in July, 2004. The revision petitioner was claimed to have undertaken to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the soil within two months and as he failed to pay, the respondent claimed to have issued a registered legal notice dated 19-11-2004, for which a reply with false allegations was claimed to have been given by the revision petitioner. Hence, the suit. The claim was contested by the revision petitioner contending that he does not own tractor and trailor as alleged and the ownership of Ac.2-77 cents by the respondent is also not correct. The revision petitioner denied either getting the sand excavated or dealing with the same or having done so in the land of the respondent or having been subjected to any panchayat before elders where he agreed to pay Rs.5,000/-. He claimed to have given a reply to the registered notice issued by the respondent and desired that the suit be dismissed with costs. During the trial, the trial Court examined P.W.1 and D.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. It rendered the impugned judgment opining that the revision petitioner did not seriously challenge the title of the plaintiff to his land and did not deny selling loose soil in Machilipatnam by transporting on tractor-cum-trailor. The revision petitioner was also noted to have admitted about the usual practice in Pothepalli and surrounding villages of so selling loose soil at Rs.150/- per load of tractor and the respondent or his relatives not contesting any elections. The trial Court opined any political rivalry to be not established and though the elders to the panchayat were not examined as witnesses, the notices exchanged between the parties showed the relationship between them to be strained. The trial Court also noted that the person who is paid Rs.3,000/- for transporting mud to fill the pits in the dry land of the respondent, was also not examined, but observed that the respondent had no reason to issue a legal notice to the revision petitioner but for the truth of his claim and the trial Court also presumed that no person would file a false suit for such a meagre amount after issuing a legal notice and therefore, found that the respondent is entitled to damages as claimed with interest as claimed and costs. The trial Court also awarded future interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree till realization. The said judgment is under challenge in this revision contending that the respondent did not prove his case by oral or documentary evidence and did not examine any elder or the person who issued Ex.A.3. The revision petitioner contended that in the face of clear denial of the liability by the defendant and the absence of any corroborating evidence for P.W.1, the suit ought not to have been decreed. If the pits were filled at a cost of Rs.3,000/-, the story of the respondent clearly appears improbable and no documents were produced either to show the ownership of the land of the plaintiff or the ownership of the tractor with the defendant. The decree was on assumptions and presumptions and has to be reversed. Sri Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed from the defendant ? Point: The examination in chief of the plaintiff and the defendant as P.W.1 and D.W.1 respectively is a reiteration of the respective claims and during the cross-examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1, he asserted that he owned Ac.2-77 cents, for which he is paying taxes and in respect of which, he can produce the title deed. Though he was unable to give the date on which the defendant dug the soil from his land, he stated it to be during May and June, 2004 and he claimed that he is personally cultivating the land in question and caught the defendant and took away the keys of the tractor from the defendant stating that he would lodge a criminal case against him. Though the said facts were not so specified in the plaint, the plaintiff also alleged that the driver of the tractor was caught by him and not the defendant and while admitting that he did not file any criminal case against the defendant or the driver, and admitting that he did not file any documents to show the ownership of the tractor and trailor, the plaintiff admitted that it was only his oral evidence that is available in support of the claim. The plaintiff claimed that the elders named by him participated in the panchayat, that he was not able to give the date of the panchayat and that he gave the details of the manner in which the panchayat was held. The plaintiff stated that he can examine one or two elders named by him and he can also examine the person who issued Ex.A.3 receipt. The plaintiff further stated that he himself paid the amount under Ex.A.3 to K.N.V. Ramanuja Rao and though there is no other evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the chief and cross examinations of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 did not disclose any positive circumstances that can be said to have been elicited against the reliability of the claims of the plaintiff. As opposed to this, D.W.1 in his cross-examination had admitted that neither he nor P.W.1 nor any relatives of P.W.1 contested any election showing that the alleged political rivalry between them leading to fabrication of the suit claim, is not probable. While D.W.1 is a native of Pothepalli, P.W.1 is a resident of Chilakalapudi according to D.W.1 and there was absolutely no reason or motive that can be attributed to P.W.1 to foist a false case. Though the defendant denied ownership of the tractor and trailor as alleged by the plaintiff, he admitted that it is the usual practice to supply soil from the lands of Pothepalli to Machilipatnam at a price of Rs.150/- per load of tractor. The plaintiff having landed property within the limits of Pothireddipalem was also admitted by D.W.1. While he denied the details about two of the elders named by the plaintiff, the defendant did not indicate, in any manner, from his evidence any strong reason for the plaintiff to fabricate a false claim against him. The claim made by the plaintiff in Ex.A.1 notice is quite consistent with the claim in the suit, while the denials of the defendant in Ex.A.2 reply notice are similar to the defence taken in the suit. Ex.A.3 receipt is said to have been issued by one K.N.V. Ramanuja Rao towards the cost of filling up the pits and levelling the land of the plaintiff and though the said Ramanuja Rao is not examined, what remained for appreciation by the Court are the oath against oath by the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial Court had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses while examining the plaintiff and the defendant during the trial and it had formed a positive opinion about the dependability of the claims of P.W.1 and non-acceptability of the version of the defendant and unless there are very strong and convincing reasons to deviate from appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, the restricted revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to upset the conclusions of the trial Court. It is true that the plaintiff failed to examine any mediator or the person who issued Ex.A.3, but no adverse inference need be drawn on such a circumstance, as it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that counts. As the civil cause has to be decided on the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record, the conclusions of the trial Court cannot be considered perverse and it has also to be remembered that in a small cause suit, the trial is summary and the trial Court is required only to give a brief indication of the reasons for its judgment without any need for any unnecessary elaboration of the reasons for the conclusions of the trial Court. With that background, the appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 by the trial Court cannot be found fault with as unnatural or baseless and the circumstances referred to by the trial Court and the probabilities relied on by it are not such as would require rejection by this Court in this revision. Under the circumstances, the revision has to fail. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-08-2010 Svv