The plaintiff must establish valid ownership and cause of action to sue for recovery.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-04-2001 made in A.S.No.8 of 2000, on the file of the District Judge, Nilgris at Udhagamandalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1999 passed in O.S.No.116 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is the owner of the property to the extent of 0.30 acre in Survey No.340 in Kil-Kundha Village, Uthagamandalam Taluk. Adjoining to his property one B.J.Raman, S/o Joghee Gowder of Kechigetty was owning some extent in the same Survey number and there was a Naga tree on the boundary dividing the property of the plaintiff and B.J.Raman and in respect of the said Naga tree, dispute arose between the parties and the same was amicably settled and thereby the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.33/- to the said Raman, who in turn executed a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount and also giving up his right to the said tree and as and from 10.01.1981, the plaintiff was having control of the said tree and having its exclusive ownership and the plaintiff was also enjoying the said tree. While so, the defendants in connivance together had cut the above said Naga tree on 13.02.1997, without obtaining any cutting permission from the appropriate authority as per the Act and thereby committed theft and misappropriation. The value of the tree, which according to the plaintiff is more than Rs.10,000/- and it is only the first defendant in connivance with the second defendant who had cut the tree and thereby, the first defendant is liable to pay the value of the tree as above stated to the plaintiff and in this connection, the plaintiff had given a complaint to the forest department regarding the above said illegal cutting of the tree and lodged a police complaint in respect of the theft of the tree by the defendants and on account of the influence exercised by the defendants, the police did not take any concrete action with reference to the complaint and hence, the plaintiff sent a notice to the first defendant, narrating the above said facts and claiming the value of the tree and for the same, the first defendant sent a reply containing false allegations and in view of the illegal cutting of the Naga tree by the first defendant in connivance with the second defendant, the plaintiff has sustained loss of Rs.10,000/- and hence, the second defendant also had been added as a party, though no decree can be passed against him as such and it is only the first defendant who is liable to compensate for the illegal cutting of the tree as claimed by the plaintiff and hence, the suit for appropriate relief’s.

5. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that the plaintiff has land in S.No.340 of Kil Kundah village as claimed in the plaint and following the dispute between the plaintiff and B.J.Raman as regards the Naga tree standing on the boundary between the land of plaintiff and B.J.Raman, they had agreed for an understanding and accordingly, on 10.01.1981, B.J.Raman had given up his right over the Naga tree by receiving a sum of Rs.33/- from the plaintiff and executed a receipt as claimed in the plaint and the alleged sale of tree by B.J.Raman is not valid in law, as B.J.Raman has no right to sell the same to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff's claim of the Naga tree is unacceptable in the eyes of law and it is false to state that the first defendant in connivance with the second defendant has cut the tree as put forth by the plaintiff, without obtaining necessary permission from the appropriate authority as per the Act and the first defendant did not cut the tree as alleged in the plaint and inasmuch as the complaint had been falsely lodged by the plaintiff with the police and the fo