IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BARGRLQRE DATED THIS THE 15"'nAx or sEPTEMRER}jRfia§gv PRESERT THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTTcEyR}L}MAxJURRTRxyE THE HON'BLE Ms;JU$TIcE_R.v.RRGRRATHNA R.F.A.NoTi0b3.oE'2ob15 BETWEEN 1 THE STATE QRuKARNmjaKé"1R?R" BY IT3_€HIEF SEERETARX 3 BAN$AL§RE.,} . 2V THE BERfiT¥'céEsERvAToR ',oE FOREST W,2__ RoRPA'n:v:sToN' KoRPA._; 'V 'T APPEkLANTS R=,w(3§Rs;i,: M B PRABHAKAR,GOVT.ADV.FOR "_AEPELLAflTS") .#ND,: 1 jM/S MYSORE PLANTATION LTD "=QUARn HITLOW KOPPA 577 126 COMPANY REGD UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT REP BY A PERIYA KARUPPAN s/o S.P.R. ADIKKAPPA CHETTIAR 50 YRS MANGER, P.A HOLDER RESPONDENT
Pd
(By Sri : VYASA RAO K S FOR RESPONDENT )
THIS RFA FILED 17/8 96 0F cpc AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20/0’7/2001 PASSED IN
os NO.24/94 on THE FILE OF THE cIvIL”‘—-.>JUDGE
(SR.DN.) & cum, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY _DE_C-REEING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUIsI.’_Ij’ .A1’~:D_. F99.
INJUNCTION FROM TAKING COERCIVE STEDS.” *’
THIS APPEAL COMING _oN__ FoI<""HE§ARiNG'. TF.Is»_
DAY, MANJUNATI-I J, DELIVERED 'TE-IE".FOLI;§)E€'I1§IG'iVVV I
JU1BG1V£E1N'I'—- A — ..
The appellants were defendants in e.S.NO.
24/V9’4t”‘F’ emf}; the £’iIé of”‘C:itvil Judge, (Sr . Dn. ) ,
Chi5kfiagélnrt}VtTdflfihe respondent was the
plaintfiilffv; TA1′;eV”*suit was instituted by the
resgondenttplaintiff to direct the defendants
“-“sum of Rs.2,94,4’79/—- together with
“Anterest’: at 15% p.a. from 8.2.1992 on
Rs;I,’:.64,27o/- and from 23.7.1992 on the
xx_halance amount of Rs.1,30,209/- and to
E restrain the defendants from taking any
coercive steps to recover a sum of
Rs.2,89,162/- as per the demand of 2″‘
<9"
defendant dt.5.2.1993 and 21.4.1993. The suit
filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed by
the Judgement and decree of the trial court
dt.2Um July 2001. Challenging the $fidgaent_
and. decree of the trial mcourt,.gthe_:presentf x
appeal is filed.
2. For the sake fiofx convéniencéi the
parties would .het referred ,to «as'”per their
status before the ¢onrt7helon3ij
3,–vi°3heR ” plaintiff is a company
incorporatedirundery the provisions of the
Conpanies~_hct.’ The plaintiff company is
A*,havingrfaa coffee estate in Chikmangalur
i”_t§istrict;” contending that excess shade trees
‘in”its coffee plantation are required to be
” cleared in the interest of the plantation, the
dplaintiff approached the authorities to seek
permission to fell the excess shade trees. The
permission was granted for felling of 750
marked and selected timber trees.
3’,
Accordingly, 750 trees were felled by the
plaintiff. At the time of transportation, the
defendants demanded the plaintiff to pay the
value of the reserved trees.
4. It is not in W’dispnted”ithat{; theslf
defendants identified abont #4 reserved trees.
The plaintiff in order to transport the trees
felled by it executed the Indemnity bond in
favour of the ‘defendants dstating that the
valne_–offWthe<pMalki fwould be paid to the
Governeent and thereafter a demand was made by
the zdefendantsl Based on the demand, a
".portionfof the demanded amount was paid by the
"_"plainfiiffff The remaining amount was not paid.
Hewever} steps were taken to recover the
"*balance amount of Rs.2,94,479/m the suit was
Reiinstituted by the plaintiff on the ground that
the trees felled by it were not reserved trees
and it belongs to the plaintiff and that the
Indemnity bond was executed under the threat
&,
as the felling permission was urgentiv needed
by it. In the circumstances, the.suit–nes_
filed for refund of the Hamnnnt;<neidL'hyxtitf.x
towards the portion of the reserved trees and
for perpetual injunction to Frestrain the
defendants from taking any coercive steps to
recover the balance demanded amount.
5. ;’=1″1′:e_:’.”de_fendént§’.jf–fiied the written
the plaintiffais not maintainable. According
to -the “p.:iei”nt’i”££ is liable to pay the
vaiue of the timber worth Rs.5,83,64l/– as the
A’nfi1aintiff has removed the reserved trees and
f.”thatnthe;§iaintiff on its own has executed an
indemnity bond and a portion of the amount was
“Iaiso paid contending that the Government being
ltithe owner of the reserved trees, he is
entitled to claim the value of the Malki. In
the circumstances, the defendants requested
the Court to dismiss the suit.
<V
6. Based on the above p1eadings;_ the
following issues were framed:
1.
“liablés to
Does plaintiff proves thatV all dtreesflu
including 750 marked and felled trees from *
the schedule land and felled as per the?
permission of 2″‘Q defendant’ ‘H;fi:Q.,
exclusivelY belonged to it? ” = =’~ V
Do defendants prove*.thatq reserved” trees
from out of 750 marked and felled trees
from the schedule land are trees belonging
to Government? _–
Does plaintiff*proves_that on 7.2.92 under
pressure defendant obtained Indemnity Bond
from’hifi to pay malhi value fined by them
or defendant 30.2 and the said Indemnity
‘BondVis’unjnst?f;
._ Do udefendantsl prove that plaintiff is
_ liable, to pay total malki value of
“‘gRSn5:33}541/n?
lfloes plaintiff proves that defendants are
_ V_ refund the malki value of
Rs;$;94,479/~ called from him together
%with interest at the rate of 15% per annum
“_from the respective dates of payments?
Does plaintiff proves that suit notice to
defendants is legal and valid?
What Order or decree?
,3,/’
7. In order to prove their respective
contentions, the Power of Attorney Holder of
the plaintiff has been examined as aw; and he
relied upon Ex.Pl to P20. On behalf of theft
defendants, one Channappa was examined as pwl.
The defendants relied_uponfiEx.D1 to 911; ,¢fie_
trial court, considering the euidence let in
by the parties fheld ,issue”gNo.1 and 6 in
affirmative, issue Nos!Z_to dfin negative and
issue — jE¢nSW 7 partly in affirmative.
Accordingly, “the?Vsuit of the plaintiff has
beenr decreed directing the defendants to
.A Wrefuind.,a’«–..sum of Rs.2,94,4’79/- with interest at
lhfE%«”per_flannum and further restrained the
defendants from recovering the balance amount.
‘*Thiss Judgment and decree are called in
27-guestion in this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for
both the parties.
\<'/
9. The main contention of the learned
Government Advocate Mr. Prabhakar is that the
trial court has comitted a serious error in
considering that the 750 trees felled hy thefp
plaintiff were exclusively helonq to it germ’
though the amount demanded hy the _defendants
was in respect of gthe reserved trees.
According to hinf the learned Judge did not
consider the nature_ of ~tr§éég felled. by ‘the
plaintiff and did not make any effort to find
out the difference hetween the reserved trees
and utreesaphelong to the plaintiff. On
. Racconnt of the error committed by the trial
‘_ court tin “not distinguishing the nature of
timber”f and the amount claimed by the
“*defendants, the suit of the plaintiff has been
Z7!vrong1y decreed. He further contends that the
trial court has failed to see that when the
plaintiff on its own has executed an Indemnity
bond and has paid a portion of the value of
(V…
the timber demanded by the defendants, it had
no authority to grant a decree.
contends if really the plaintiff [was –$¢£;a
liable to Pay the value of theatimher, there?
was no necessity for the plaintiff_to’execute
an Indemnity bond and flaking part paynent of
it and two years later to institute a suit to
restrain the defendants’ iron _recovering the
balance amount and to refund the amount paid
by the plaintiffxyeluntarily having understood
the nature of trees fell by the plaintiff.
3,103. The ” learned counsel for the
iyrespondéntfplaintiff contends that in view of
A$x.DlrlBEhe reserved trees means only the
la sandal wood knees and
Vgiflktlif
‘ %”i%:gf trees and all
é/’
‘ the remaining trees were exclusive properties
riof the plaintiff. Therefore, he contends that
the trial court is justified in decreeing the
suit .
plaintiff are unreserved trees then the
plaintiff need not pay the market value of the
timber as it is not the case of the_§overnnent
that the unreserved trees were grown S§*£hé;
Government in respect of the plantationf fof7
the plaintiff in question I f p__ y
by. ‘a_”»£aJy4%
14. Admittedly, yflthe_ peantation in
question has been oranted by”the Government in
the:’iVyear…:sv1_89dlf”andp:’thereafter in the year 1943
the plaintiffefionpany has purchased it under
registered sale deed from its previous owner.
‘f*- fiherefcge, Hthé” short question is that what
felled by the plaintiff and
Awhether it falls under the reserved trees or
in not,_3
15. As could. be seen from Ex.P11, the
list of trees and the value thereon has been
mentioned by the Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Koppa Division. As could be seen from Ex.P11,
<°v"
these trees are Honne, Nandi and Surae Honne.
Therefore, the question is whether irthese
trees are reserved teas or unreserved trees.
There was no difficulty for the trig; fiburt to”Q
look into the definition clause Q§tSfibws§ction’
(15) of Section–2 of the KarnatakaW#orest Acts
1963 which enumerates the nature of reserved
trees. As Vcotldflii$é;_nseen Hrrom thedbe
definitionf%/thelreserred Egeéscflaimed by the
defendant falls finder the definition clause.
If they are the reserved trees, then it is for
*plaintiV::EVf to establish how it is not
r”liahle,to pay the value of the timber felled
iVfsq«£ss;ssjit relates to Randi, Matti and Sura
Honne are concerned. Since this point was not
” considered as the trial court proceeded on the
nioround based on Nandi, Honne and Sura Honne as
i not reserved trees. The trial court has
proceeded to decree the suit. Since the
crucial point has not been considered, we are
8’/..
show that the value claimed by thejdefendefits
was in respect of the reserved Atrees _¢:}y
unreserved trees relying uyon the definitedn
of the reserved trees udder the gKernataka>
Forest Act 1963. In the circumstshces} parties
to bear the costs:7_i