MAHAVARAYA UDPA Vs. DASA TANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case is the landlord and the defendant is a mulgeni tenant and the tenancy was created in the year 1943. The landlord sued the tenant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 520/by way of damages for injury caused to him by the destruction of certain trees standing on the leased premises. The defendant admitted that he had destroyed five trees but pleaded justification for removing them besides raising a plea that such removal was within his rights. The Munsiff made a decree for a sum of Rs. 520/- but this decree was modified by the appellate Court by reducing the damages to a sum of Rs. 365/-. In this revision petition Mr. Raghavendrarao, the learned advocate for the tenant contends that both the Courts below were in error in assuming that any trees standing upon the property leased to the defendant had been removed by him.

(2.) The Munsiff was of the view that as many as eleven trees had been cut but when it was urged before, the appellate Court that according to the commissioner's reports produced in the case many of those trees were not standing on the leased property but were situate on the surrounding lands, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was no proof that the surrounding lands on which some of the removed trees existed belonged to the landlord. But it was nevertheless of the view that since the defendant had admitted in his written statement that at least five trees had been removed by him from the suit land the defendant had made himself liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for such removal.

(3.) The criticism of Mr. Raghavendrarao against this part of the judgment of the appellate Court is that the appellate Court has misread the written statement of the defendant who, according to Mr. Raghavendrarao, made no such admission. I am not inclined to think that this criticism of Mr. Raghavendrarao is well founded. I see from the written statement of the defendant that ha did make an admission that at least five trees situate on the suit land had been cut and removed by him, although he contended that such removal was well within his rights.