J U D G M E N T

The defendants, who lost the suit filed against them for damages in O.S.No. 401 of 1997 successively both before the trial court and also before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.252 of 2000 that they had preferred, are the appellants herein. For narrative convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the trial court.

2. The suit is laid for damages for preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the licence dated 05.01.1995 under which the plaintiff claims that he had right to pluck the usufructs of 86 coconut trees.

3. According to the plaintiff, a certain Ramasamy and his sons entered into registered paritition deed Vide Ext.A.3 dated 02.09.1971. In this partition, one Chinnasamy was allotted 'B' schedule property. This property is the suit property herein.

4. The first defendant is the brother of Chinnasamy and a party to Ext.A.3 partition deed. In the partition, he was allotted 'C' schedule property. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant.

5. Be that as it may, on 05.01.1995, Chinnasamy granted a license to the plaintiff for plucking coconuts Vide Ext.A.4 document. The license was provided for 3 years term. The plaintiff enjoyed the license for the first 19 months and thereafter, the first defendant obstructed the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment from entering the property and enjoying the right to pluck the coconuts. Hence, he laid a suit for damages claiming a sum of Rs.25,500/-

as the value of damage he had suffered at the rate of 1,500/- per month.

6. In the written statement filed by the first defendant which was adopted by his son, the second defendant, he blindly disputed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants even pleaded ignorance about Chinnasamy's share pertaining to 'C' schedule property under Ext.A.3 partition deed. Turning to core allegation of the plaintiff itself, the defendants alleged that of the 86 trees, 50 trees have been lost in drought and the first defendant had little to do with this. So far as the remaining trees are concerned, it is common to both the plaintiff and the first defendant. Hence, Chinnasamy Pillai did not have any right to execute any licence deed in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The dispute went to trial. Before the trial court, both sides adduced their oral and documentary evidence.

8. One of the evidence produced is the judgment in C.C.No.79 of 1994. This is a criminal case involving the plaintiff's licensor Chinnasamy's wife and the first defendant. The allegation therein was the first defendant had beaten Chinnasamy's wife. This ended in conviction and the judgment thereof is marked as Ext.A.5. Relying on the circumstances so posed, the trial court decreed the suit and it was later confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

9. This Second Appeal was admitted for considering the following questions of law:

i)Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below is legally sustainable in holding that the appellants are responsible for the loss basing on the past dispute between the appellants and the owner of the land?

ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below is legally sustainable in decreeing the suit as prayed by the plaintiff when there is no specific pleadings and evidence on the side of the plaintiff to prove the quantum of damages?

10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first defendant had positively alleged in his written statement that 50 coconut trees have dried up due to drought and P.W.1 had conceded the same in his cross- examination. Secondly, the plaintiff had not established how he arrived at a loss of Rs.25,500/-specifically. He added that since the first defendant and Chinnasamy's wife were involved in a criminal litigation, the plaintiff has been set up by Chinnasamy to file a false case. He added that the trial court has relied on Ext.A.5 the copy of the judgment in C.C.No.79 of 1994 to arrive at an unliquidated damage of Rs.25,500/- without any just basis.

11. Heard the learned counsel for t