RADHA TILES NIRVADE Vs. MAHESH LAXMAN ALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocates appearing for the parties. After having heard the parties, I find that the following substantial question of law arises:

(2.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the second appeal is immediately taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The first appellant is a partnership firm of which the second to fourth appellants are the partners. The first respondent was employed in the factory of the first appellant and the first respondent resigned on 31st October, 1990. According to the case of the appellants, they had purchased 4,000 alphanso mango grafts from one Vikas Nursery at the price of Rs.8/- per graft the price of which at the time of filing the suit was Rs.25/- per grafts. The first respondent started a nursery at village Mazgaon. The first respondent came to know about the grafts bought by the appellants and he filed a suit against the third respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sawantwadi contending that the graft in the factory of the first appellant were owned by him and the third respondent was obstructing him from transporting the said grafts to some other place. The appellants were not impleaded as parties to the said suit. According to the case of the appellants on obtaining an order for grant of police protection in the said suit filed by the first respondent, he entered the factory premises of the first appellant and took away 400 mango grafts. Thereafter he again entered the factory premises of the first appellant and took away 3,000/- mango grafts. The claim in the suit filed by the appellants is for the compensation. The said claim was contested by the first and second respondents by filing written statement. The first and second respondents made a counter claim for the amount of Rs.02,02,875/- against the appellants contending that the appellants misappropriated 13,525 mango grafts owned by them. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the first and second respondents to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to the first appellant for damages for trespass. The trial Court dismissed the counter claim. An appeal was preferred by the present appellants. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellants.