VAJJULA ANANTHARAMAN Vs. ADAPALA SUBBA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this second appeal was the plaintiff in the original Court. His suit was for recovery of certain damages and for an injunction. The damages related to the value of the earth said to have been dug from this land by the first defendant with the connivance of the second defendant, a tenant of the plaintiff. The earth dug was converted into bricks and the injunction was to restrain the defendants from entering, removing or inter fering with the brick kilns. The kilns are situated in an area of 10 cents in a larger area of 70 cents from out of which there was the digging of the earth. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled in damages to a sum of Rs. 400. How that was arrived at by the trial Court was that Rs. 300 was considered by it to be the value of the earth removed. Rs. 50 was regarded by it as the expense to be in curred by the plaintiff for manuring of the plots which were dug out and another Rs. 50 was reckoned to be the charge for levelling up of the pits which were created in the process of digging of the earth. On appeal the learned Dis trict Judge added a sum of Rs. 284 more to the amount of damages. The District Judge did so for the reason that he considered that Rs. 150 instead of Rs. 50 was the proper charge for manuring and that a like sum was the proper charge for levelling. He also held that the plaintiff was entitled to the value of the crops that he would have been able to realise from out of the lands in question for the years 194546 and 1946-47. The value of the crops according to the estimate of the learned Judge was Rs. 84: Both the Courts below refused the relief of injunction.

(2.) In second appeal the point urged is that Rs. 684 is insufficient damages. It is said that that is so, because in addition to the Rs. 684 the plaintiff is entitled in law to the value of the bricks themselves into which the earth was actually converted. It was apparently considered by the Courts below that no claim for the value of the bricks should be allowed to be made when the value of the earth which was removed was itself being granted to the plaintiff. This it is contended by the learned counsel, is wrong because the injunction that was asked for in the plaint proceeded on the basis that the property into which the earth became converted was really that of the plaintiff. It is urged that where a wrong-doer has actually converted earth removed from the plaintiff's land into something else, the value of that something else is really what has to be taken into account by the Court for assessment of damages.

(3.) In support of this contention reliance is placed by Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar, for the Appellant, on a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 'Carrit Moran and Co. v. Maanmathanath Mukherji', ILR (1941) 1 Cal 285. It is also urged by the learned counsel that the District Judge was wrong in supposing that the trial Court had out of the Rs. 400 granted by it, put down Its. 300 as for value of the earth removed. The trial Court in fact, took into account the value of the whole property as with reference to the purchase price paid by the plaintiff in the year 1924 and roughly held the 70 cents, which according to it became useless for the plaintiff after the digging of pits in it by the first defendant, to be worth about Rs. 300. Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar says that the test adopted by the trial Court is wrong.