SUKUMARAN Vs. SANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O.S. No.353 of 2001 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is aggrieved by the judgment and decree as confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Irinjalakuda in A.S. No.162 of 2006.

(2.) RESPONDENTS sued the appellants for a decree for recovery of damages. They claimed that plaint A schedule belonged to Surendran, husband of first respondent and father of second respondent as per document No.1382/1971. On the death of Surendran on 06.06.1996, plaint A schedule devolved on the respondents and other legal heirs of the said Surendran. While so, it is alleged that appellants trespassed into the plaint A schedule on the night of 14.07.2001 and caused damage to the household articles, crops and the car belonging to the first respondent. They claimed damages for the damage caused to the said articles and compensation for their mental agony. Appellants denied the allegations and contended that they had no role in the alleged commission of mischief.

(3.) THAT there was extensive damage caused to the property of respondents is in evidence apart from the documents relating to the criminal case, proved through P.W.7, the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.C1, report. In Ext.C1, report it is stated that house was damaged and crops, TV, CD system and electrical bulbs installed in the house were all damaged. Apart from that the car belonging to the first respondent which was parked in the car porch was also damaged. These aspects are reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 and testified by P.W.7. Apart from that, there is Ext.A9 series, photographs and Ext.A10, its negative proved through P.W.4, photographer.