THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.507 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed against the judgment, dated 02.09.2003, in Original Suit No.38 of 1998, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, whereunder and whereby, the Original Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff as informa pauperis for recovery of Rs.1,64,400/- by way of damages caused to her by the respondent/defendant, was partly decreed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant/plaintiff filed the Original Suit against the respondent/defendant stating that the respondent is the exclusive owner of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The respondent got the said property by virtue of a settlement deed executed by her husband in the year 1958 along with some other properties. When the respondent was in need of money, she sold the plaint 'A' schedule property to the appellant for a sum of Rs.15,600/- and executed an agreement of sale on 22.08.1968 in favour of the appellant agreeing to execute a sale deed whenever the same was demanded by the appellant, and delivered plaint 'A' schedule property to the appellant. The appellant had spent about Rs.20,000/- and got dug a well in the plaint 'A' schedule property and also invested about Rs.20,000/- to improve the land. Subsequently, on demand made by the appellant, the respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on 17.02.1988. On request made by the appellant, the respondent offered plaint 'B' schedule property as security to plaint 'A' schedule property. While so, on 25.10.1989, Government took over possession of the plaint 'A' schedule land under Land Ceiling Act and consequently, the appellant was dispossessed from the plaint 'A' schedule property. The value of the land was Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property and the appellant claimed damages of Rs.1,64,000/-. The respondent filed a written statement admitting the execution of agreement of sale dated 22.08.1968 and registered sale deed dated 17.02.1988 in favour of the appellant, but denied that the property was sold for Rs.15,600/- and also digging of well by the appellant in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the improvement of the land by spending certain amounts. It is also denied by the respondent that plaint 'B' schedule property was given as security to plaint 'A' schedule property, in case the appellant losses her possession over the plaint 'A' schedule property. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any damages. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed for trial: "1) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract under agreement of sale dt.22-08-1968? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages of an amount of Rs.1,64,400/- together with future interest as prayed? 3) Whether a charge is liable to be created on plaint B schedule property for suit amount? 4) To what relief?" 4. During trial, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no documents were marked. Exs.X-1 to X-3 were got marked. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the value of the land as on the date of her dispossession and therefore, the value of land as mentioned in the agreement of sale, Ex.A-1, has been taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding damages and accordingly, awarded damages of Rs.15,600/- together with costs and interest to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for any damages claimed in the suit? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court ought to have enhanced the amount basing on Ex.A-3, which is a Valuation Certificate; that the value of the property as on the date of agreement of sale cannot be a basis for estimating the damages and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the agreement of sale was executed in the year 1968, to keep up the contract, the respondent executed a registered sale deed in the year 1989 in favour of the appellant; that the appellant took advantage of the innocence and illiteracy of the respondent and got mentioned in the sale deed that plaint 'B' schedule property was given as security to the appellant; that there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant to show as to how she is entitled for the damages claimed; that therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and hence, he prays to dismiss the Appeal Suit. 9. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent/defendant is the owner of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. It is also not in dispute that the respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellant in the year 1968, giving possession of plaint 'A' schedule property at that point of time. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the agreement of sale under Ex.A-1, the respondent executed a registered sale deed under Ex.A-2 on 17.02.1988. It is also not in dispute that the Government acquired plaint 'A' schedule property under the Land Ceiling Act and the appellant was dispossessed from the plaint 'A' schedule property in the year 1989. There is a recital in Ex.A-2, to the effect that a charge was created in favour of the appellant on plaint ‘B’ schedule property in case of defect in the title relating to the plaint 'A' schedule property. Though it was denied by the respondent that without her knowledge the said recital was got scribed in Ex.A-2, she cannot plead ignorance of the same and cannot be permitted to give oral evidence contrary to the recitals in the sale deed, Ex.A-2. Therefore, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the evidence of the respondent with regard to her ignorance of creating a charge in Ex.A-2 in favour of the appellant on plaint 'B' schedule property towards security to plaint 'A' schedule property. 10. Now, the only point that requires consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for any enhancement of damages. For that, the value of the property as on the date of dispossession must be shown. In view of the fact that the appellant was dispossessed by the Government in the year 1989, the appellant must plead and establish the value of the land as on the date of her dispossession from the plaint 'A' schedule property. There is absolutely no evidence, except Ex.A-3, which is a Valuation Certificate showing the value of the property, to show what was the value of land in the year 1989. That cannot be a basis for determining the damages, because the Valuation Certificate was obtained by the appellant twelve years after her dispossession from the plaint 'A' schedule property. Under no stretch of imagination, the same can be taken as a basis for estimation of damages. There cannot be any dispute that there would be increase in the value of the property, but, at the same time, there cannot be uniform or standard increase of value of immovable property. Therefore, there must be some basis for the Court to estimate the damages basing on the evidence available as on the date of dispossession. Such evidence is lacking. Therefore, the trial Court rightly taken into consideration the value of the land as mentioned in Ex.A-1 and estimated the damages basing on the recitals in Ex.A-1. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 08, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.507 OF 2006 Between: Shaik Asia Begum .....APPELLANT AND Shaik Kareemunnisa Begum ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.507 OF 2006 September 08, 2010