Telangana High Court
AS/2397/1996 of Masina Sriramulu Vs Morampudi Sitaramaiah (died) on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.2397 OF 1996 JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.464 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, is the appellant herein. 2. According to the case of the plaintiff, he is the sub-lessee of the 2nd defendant
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.2397 OF 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:-
The plaintiff in O.S.No.464 of 1983 on the file of the Court ofPrincipal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, is the appellant herein.
2. According to the case of the plaintiff, he is the sub-lessee of the2[nd] defendant when auction of fishery rights in Chinthala Cheruvu ofG.Medapadu was held for a period of three years from 01.07.1982 to30.06.1985 with the yearly rent of Rs.9,000/-. The 2[nd] defendant beingthe lessee accepted the conditions of the plaintiff and deliveredpossession and the amount was also deposited. After takingpossession of the tank, the plaintiff has put fish seedlings. In themeanwhile, differences arose between the 2[nd] defendant and theGrampanchayat due to elections and new body was elected, which isopposite to the plaintiff and they cancelled the sub-lease by resolutiondated 17.12.1982. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.178 of 1983against Grampanchayat and defendant No.2 and obtained orders ofinterim injunction in I.A.No.231 of 1983. During the pendency of thatsuit, defendants have obstructed the plaintiff and his people fromcatching the fish. Even after the favourable order in favour of theplaintiff, no release orders were given and the plaintiff suffered loss. There was severe summer during the year and the tank has dried upand at that time also there was obstruction by defendant No.1 and hisfamily members and followers in catching the fish. As on 18.04.1983the value of the fish was Rs.50,000/- and subsequently also some fishdied and therefore, the total value of damage suffered by the plaintiff isRs.60,000/-.
3. The 1[st] defendant, who was the Sarpanch has filed a writtenstatement contending that the plaintiff has no legal right for fishing and defendant No.2 was not granted any lease and consequently, hecannot get any sub lease. The allegations of causing loss to the fishand obstructing the fishing are totally false. The other defendants alsohave taken similar pleas. Defendant No.16, the Panchayat Officer,was added in personal capacity.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues havebeen framed. After considering the evidence on record, the Courtbelow has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the present appeal is filed.
5. The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the loss alleged to havebeen caused by the defendants?been caused by the defendants?
2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courtbelow is legal and sustainable?below is legal and sustainable?
6. POINTS:
Evidently, there is no independent lease in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be a sub-lessee from the 2[nd] defendant. Therefore, in order to have enforceable right, the plaintiff has to provethat there was a valid lease in favour of the 2[nd] defendant. In fact, thisdispute is subject matter of the writs before the High Court and theHigh Court clearly found that the sub-lease claimed by the plaintiffherein is inoperative and unenforceable. Therefore, consequently itgoes to show that the claim of the plaintiff that he has a right to catchthe fish is not correct. Added to that, in a connected suit an Advocate-Commissioner is said to have been appointed and he visited the tankon 20.03.1983 and as per his observation, there was no death of thefish nor any damage to the tank. In fact, this particular fact was dealtby the lower Court in para No.21 of the judgment. Therefore, the claimof the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit also he suffered lossand that he was not allowed to catch the fish is not correct. There is no
Conclusion
other evidence to show that the fish have died due to the acts of thedefendant No.1 and his family members. Except the interestedevidence of PW.1, which is not supported by acceptable evidence,there is no material to show that the damages said to have beensuffered by the plaintiff is true and real. In the absence of any suchevidence and in the absence of enforceable right in favour of theplaintiff, the plaintiff cannot claim any damages. Therefore, the Courtbelow has rightly dismissed the suit and I find no ground to interferewith the judgment of the Court below.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. MiscellaneousPetitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date: 31.12.2012
INL