MARAPPAN Vs. T.K.RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the original suit are the appellants herein. Plaintiff in the original suit is the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.386 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Bhavani against the appellants herein/defendants for a decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as damages for the damage caused to the trees in the suit properties with an interest on the said amount from the date of plaint till realisation and also for cost. The suit was decreed as prayed for with cost by the trial court and the appeal filed by the appellants herein/defendants in A.S.No.20/2005 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhavani was dismissed. As against the decree of the said appellate court by which the decree passed by the trial court stood confirmed, the appellants herein have come forward with the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the original suit.

(2.) The plaintiff T.K.Ramasamy is the son of Tmt.Muthayammal. The first defendant Marappan is the son-in-law of the said Muthayammal. The second defendant Chinnakannan @ Annamalai is the brother of the first defendant. Third defendant Selvakumar and the fourth defendant Sengottuvelavan, according to the plaint averments, are the close relatives of Marappan. An extent of 3.25 acres comprised in Survey No.558 within the specified boundaries morefully described in the plaint schedule originally belonged to the above said Muthayammal. Claiming that the said Muthayammal executed a gift settlement deed in respect of the said suit property and another property in favour of plaintiff T.K.Ramasamy reserving a life estate for her in the suit property alone; that thus the plaintiff T.K.Ramasamy became entitled to the suit property and the trees grown therein right from 26.07.1979, the date of execution of the gift settlement deed; that the defendants, along with their henchmen numbering 50, cut sixty Palmyra trees aged 50 years, 20 neem trees aged 30 years and 12 vaagai trees aged 35 years from the suit property on 26.12.2003, removed them by two lorries bearing Regn.Nos.TN-28 Z-1441 and TCC 4363 to Anthiyur and sold them to brick chambers belonging to one Dharmalingam; that thus the defendants caused damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, the plaintiff had filed the suit for the above said reliefs. It had also been contended in the plaint that the trees were cut and removed by the defendants with the assistance of Kaundapadi Police and hence when a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff, no action was taken against him by the Kaundapadi police. It was also the contention of the plaintiff that since the further complaint to the higher police officials and the district collector proved ineffective, he had to file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani on 09.01.2004. Based on the said allegations, the plaintiff had prayed for a decree against the defendants directing them to repay a sum of Rs.70,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12%, restricting his claim to the said amount even though he had assessed the damage allegedly caused by the defendants at Rs.1,00,000/-.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on the basis of the written statement and additional written statement filed by the first defendant Marappan, which were adopted by the defendants 2 to 4. Besides denying the plaint averments that there were 60 Palymyra trees aged 50 years, 20 neem trees aged 30 years and 12 vaagai trees aged 35 years on the date of alleged occurrence as false, the defendants had contended that since Muthayammal retained a right to enjoy the suit property till her lifetime, she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that as such the document dated 26.07.1979 relied on by the plaintiff should be deemed to be a will and not a settlement. It was also the contention of the defendants that the said Muthayammal inducted the first defendant as a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land under a lease deed bearing document No.3592/2003 dated 30.12.2003 and that subsequently, Muthayammal executed a will on 07.05.2004 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the first defendant and thus the document relied on by the plaintiff stood revoked by the said will. The defendants had also denied the plaint averments that they cut and removed the trees worth Rs.1,00,000/- from the suit properties. They had taken a stand that no tree was cut and removed by any one of the defendants. Based on the above said averments, the defendants had prayed for the dismissal of the suit.