LAWS(KER)-1976-7-45

M. ABDUL JALEEL Vs. CHAEKO THOMAS

Decided On July 07, 1976
M. ABDUL JALEEL Appellant
V/S
Chaeko Thomas Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Appellant. This second appeal arises from a suit for damages. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial court. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and hence this second appeal.

(2.) THE plaint schedule property is in the possession of the Plaintiff. It is planted with arecanuts, pepper vines and other trees. On the south of this property are situated properties belonging to the Forest Department given on contract to persons to cut and remove the timber and fire -wood trees. The Defendant had taken sub coupe No. 3 for this purpose. This is situated immediately to the south of the Plaintiff's property. On the west of this sub coupe are situated sub coupe Nos. 2 and 1. According to the agreement between the Defendant and the Forest Department, the cormer had to burn and reburn the coupe area after finishing the work as per the contract. The Plaintiff had specifically asked the Defendant to be careful in setting fire to the coupe. On 30. 3. 1969 the Defendant set fire to the tree -tops and branches and the fire so caused spread into the adjoining property of the Plaintiff and destroyed valuable trees causing damage to the tune of more than Rs. 4000/ -.

(3.) IT was with these pleadings that the parties went for trial. On a consideration of the evidence in this case, both oral and documentary, the trial court found that the Plaintiff did not prove satisfactorily that the damage caused to him was on account of the negligence of the Defendant and hence dismissed the suit. The appellate court found that there was ample material to hold that the fire could not have been caused except due to negligence of the Defendant and therefore decreed the suit. On the side of the Plaintiff Exts. PI to P6 were marked and PWs 1 to 6 were examined and on the side of the Defendant Exts. Dl to D3 were marked and D Ws 1 and 2 were examined. PW1 is a neighbour, PW5 is the son of PW6 (the Plaintiff), PWs 2 and 4 are the Commissioners and PW3 is the Range Officer. DW2 is the Defendant and DW1 a kariasthan under the Defendant.