GUDDAPPA RAI Vs. NARAYANA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff, who lost his suit for recovery of money from the respondent has approached this court with this second appeal. According to him in terms of Ext.A1 compromise decree in O.S.17/53 the predecessor in interest of defendant was liable to construct a bund across a water channel for irrigation purpose. To incur expenses in that regard he was given additional share in terms of the said decree. The defendant did not construct the bund during the last few years. This resulted in suits by the plaintiff to recover the amount that he had incurred for constructing the bund. Those suits were decreed during the previous years as revealed by Ext. A1. According to the plaintiff during the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 also the defendant did not construct the bund. According to him he constructed it. He had incurred an expenditure of Rs.3600. He claimed that amount in this suit.

(2.) The suit was defended by the defendant contending that the defendant constructed the bund in terms of the compromise decree. He produced certain receipts with reference to the expenditure incurred in that regard. He also named a contractor who was entrusted to make such construction. He contended that the plaintiff did not construct the bund and was therefore not entitled to the amount claimed.

(3.) The Trial Court did not accept the contention of the defendant that he had constructed the bund. The Trial Court also did not accept the evidence in that regard tendered by the defendant. But the Trial Court did not decree the suit because according to the Trial Court there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had constructed it to claim the expense incurred for such construction. The lower appellate court also accepted that view. It is in the above circumstances, that this second appeal has been filed.