NARAYANAN Vs. MATHAN MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent instituted a suit against the appellants (defendants 3 and 4) and two others for damages and injunction. The suit property which belongs to the plaintiff and is in his possession was bounded on the south by a village pathway. At the request of the defendants and other local people the plaintiff surrendered necessary land to expand the pathway into a 12 feet wide road. The road was constructed The plaintiff thereupon erected a fence on the north side of the new road for the protection of his property. The plaintiff states that with the idea of widening the road still further the defendants with certain others demolished the fence and cut down 4 coconut trees, 3 arecanut palms and 1 plantain from his property causing him a loss of Rs.1,500/-. This was on December 3, 1972. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit for a decree for damages in Rs. 1500/- and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing or cutting any road or committing any waste upon the property or altering its boundaries.

(2.) The defendants disclaimed ail responsibility for the acts alleged in the plaint but stated that it was some other local people who widened the pathway into a 14 feet road and that too with the consent of the plaintiff and that in this process some trees that stood on the road margin had to be cut. The plaintiff constructed a fence but later on attempted to move its position with the idea of narrowing the road, an attempt which was resisted by the local people. He has followed it up, it was stated, by the suit claiming untenable reliefs and swollen damages against the defendants

(3.) The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case and evidence, rejecting the defence and the evidence which was called in its support. It however found that the damages would not exceed Rs. 750/-. The plaintiff was accordingly given a decree for injunction as claimed by him and for Rs. 750/- found by the court.