SITARAM SHAM NARAYAN FIRM Vs. ISWARI CHARAN SARANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action by the plaintiff in which he claimed damages against the defendants for converting to his own use certain Kendu leaves which are used for the manufacture of biris. It appears that the plaintiff had a license from the Government to collect these leaves from forest blocks Nos. 1 to 8 in the Chaibasa forest division. The defendants are proprietors of village Sarashposh, and the plaintiff's case was that the defendants intercepted the labourers employed by the plaintiff for the collection of these leaves and persuaded them to sell these leaves to them (the defendants). A complaint was made and ultimately some 50,000 bindas were seized and at the time of the action were in possession of the Forest Department. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed entirely to make out his case. From the judgment in would appear that the learned Judge disbelieved a great deal of the plaintiff's evidence.

(2.) The appellate Court however, although affirming the decision of the trial Court, differed so far as certain points were concerned. It is to be noticed particularly that the plaintiff claimed damages with regard to the 50,000 bindas seized and held by the Forest Department. A good deal of the controversy in the Courts below arose with regard to the question whether the defendants could possibly have produced the quantity of leaves which were found, from the trees of their particular jungle. The Judge of the appellate Court came to this conclusion and I propose to state his words: After examining all the evidence on this point I find that while it is clear that it would not be possible to gather leaves for biris to any great extent from the trees of this village (that is the defendant's village), I would hesitate to find that it would be impossible to gather any at all.

(3.) Together with that finding I would refer to the finding at the end of his judgment in which he states: The evidence on record shows that some Kendu leaves from the protected forest were purchased on behalf of the defendants, but so far as this suit is concerned I do not find satisfactory evidence to show where the leaves attached same from. Now it is contended by Mr. Mukherji on behalf of the appellant that as the plaintiff has established the fact that the defendants have taken some leaves and as those leaves are intermixed with the leaves of the defendants it was for the defendants to show the extent to which they had committed this conversion, in other words, the onus was on the defendants to establish for the plaintiffs the extent of the damages which they (the plaintiffs) had suffered.