The court emphasized the duty of defendants to prevent damage to adjacent properties and highlighted the importance of uncontroverted expert valuation in assessing damages.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for modification of a part of the judgment dated 21.09.2019 and decree dated 27.09.2019, passed in MS 04 of 2017 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), South Tripura, Belonia.

2. The facts of the case as projected by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division are reproduced here-in-below:-

'The plaintiff's case in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of a dwelling building which was constructed in the year 2009 on his own land measuring 0.36 acre appertains to RS Plot Nos. 2008/4228 and 2010/4229 recorded in Khatian No.1039 of Mouja - Harina incurring an expenditure of Rs. 40,00,000/- and the plinth area of the building is 2084 sq. ft., the details of which is described in the schedule of the plaint. The averments of the plaintiff is that after completion of construction of the suit building, the plaintiff started residing there with his family members and that the suit building was bounded on the Southern side of the house and courtyard of Defendant No.3 surveyed in the part of RS Plot No. 2008 of Mouja - Harina intervened by a small 'gali path'. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the 1st week of May, 2016 under an oral agreement for purchase the defendant No. 2 was developing the above mentioned land belonging to the defendant no. 3 by levelling the courtyard and also removing earth by engaging of a carter pillar (compressor machine) having registration No. TR-08-1573 which belonged to defendant no.1 and which was in fact mend for widening and pressuring land of the National High Way (NH 44). Plaintiff pleaded that during the process of working of the said cater pillar on the land of defendant no. 3 under the supervision of defendant no. 2, the plaintiff experienced frequent tremor in the suit building and so he raised objection to use of such heavy machine for earth cutting and levelling, but such objection could not resist them. It is also averted that on 07.05.2016 at about 8 am when the plaintiff was outside the home then under direct supervision of defendant no. 2 the driver of the said cater pillar started the work of levelling the courtyard of defendant no. 2 putting heavy pressure at a place very close to the suit building and as a result of which the walls of the suit building suffered multiple cracks making tremendous sound and at that time Smti. Lipika Datta, wife of the plaintiff rushed to the spot and raised vehement objection, but neither the defendant no. 2 nor the driver of the said cater pillar did stop their work. But however, after some times they stopped their work, but in the mean time substantial damage was caused to the suit building which turned to be precarious and extremely unsafe for human dwelling and now for safe dwelling the said building is required to be built a fresh and piecemeal repair would not work to make the suit building safe for human dwelling. It is alleged that the defendant no. 1 who is an organization named and styled as 'M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Private Ltd.' has been executing the work of widening NH 44 from Udaipur to Sabroom by engaging heavy machine like cater pillar for cutting, collection and levelling of earth, but under an oral agreement between the defendant no. 1 and in one part and defendant nos. 2 and 3 on the other under instruction from defendant no. 1 his driver drove the cater pillar on the land of defendant no. 3 with active participation and supervision of defendant no. 2 who purchased the land appertains to RS Plot No. 8 for defendant no. 3 vide a deed executed on 08.07.16. It is alleged that although the possession of the land was taken over by the de