IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.06.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.1461 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 D.Radhakrishnan Petitioner Vs. Sakkubai Respondent Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 16.10.2006 passed in A.S.No.62 of 2003 by the Principal District Judge, Chingleput, confirming the order dated 26.9.2002 passed in O.S.No.78 of 1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaidhyanathan ORDER
Inveighing the order 16.10.2006 passed in A.S.No.62 of 2003 by the Principal District Judge, Chingleput, confirming the order dated 26.9.2002 passed in O.S.No.78 of 1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, this civil revision petition is focused.
2. The long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.78 of 1983 seeking the following relief:
“to pass judgment and decree against the 1st defendant for the recovery of Rs.20,000/- jointly with the 2nd defendant by way of damages for wrongful possession of the properties and for the cost of the suit and other appropriate reliefs.”
(ii) After conducting trial, the Trial Court passed the decree as under:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
(iii) As against which, the first defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.62 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of both the Courts below this revision is focussed, as no second appeal is possible as per law, on the following grounds among others:
(i) Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff, who was bound to prove her case, simply neglected to do the same.
(ii) On mere assumptions and presumptions, the trial Court passed the decree.
(iii) In the absence of evidence, the trial Court should have dismissed the case.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant, reiterating the grounds of revision, would pray for setting aside the order of both the Courts below and for dismissing the suit.
5. Refuting and gainsaying, challenging and impugning the arguments as put forth on the side of the petitioner/first defendant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
(a) The suit itself was decreed for a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiff in view of the first defendant having illegally enjoyed an extent of 3 acres 16 cents of agricultural land, which is capable of being cultivated thrice in a year and in fact, the defendants cultivated so.
(b) By no stretch of imagination the awarding of sum of Rs.20,000/- could not be treated as exorbitant.
As such the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order of both the Courts below and for dismissing the suit.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court, warranting interference by this Court in the revision?
7. A ‘resume’ of facts necessary for passing this order would run thus:
It so happened that the revision petitioner herein earlier filed the suit O.S.No.780 of 1979 seeking injunction as though he was in possession of the suit property. It is the contention of the respondent herein in that suit that the revision petitioner herein was not in possession of the said property. Even then, by obtaining an illegal injunction the revision petitioner barged into the said land of 3 acres and 16 cents and has been occupying the same. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed. Whereupon the suit O.S.No.78 of 1983 was filed, claiming damages and in that alone the sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded as damages.
8. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the procedure to be adopted in matters of this nature. The Village Administrative Officer and the Statistics Department would be normally maintaining the records evidencing as to what were all the crops in a particular area cultivated by the farmers. If at all the plaintiff is interested, he could summon those records and establish clinchingly as to what the defendant, as a farmer, cultivated in a particular Survey No. and the Statistical data also would reveal as to what was the cost of the paddy or other crops being sold in a particular period. But in this case, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no such steps were taken by the respondent/plaintiff to place before the Court those details and the Court also never cared to demand the plaintiff to produce such evidence and both the Courts below, by and large took into account the oral evidence and decided the lis.
9. The core question arises as to whether this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, pinpointing out those features highlighted supra, could interfere.
10. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the maxim ‘Lex nil facit frustra The law does nothing in vain.
11. Applying the common sense if the matter is viewed it is quite obvious and axiomatic that a farmer by cultivating the agricultural land of 3 acres and 16 cents could very easily earn a net income of Rs.20,000/- per annum and even by phantasmagorical thoughts the revision petitioner cannot press into service his point that as a farmer, he had not earned even that much amount for a period of three years by cultivating that much vast extent of 3 acres and 16 cents. Once such common sense principle is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, applying the punctilious of Court procedures in the facts and circumstances of this case would do violence in the process of rendering justice. As such, I could see no reason to interfere with the orders of both the Courts below even though there are certain procedural non adherence in the judgements of both the Courts below.
12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
Msk
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Chingleput.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Tiruvallur