Page No.# 1/14 GAHC030000192018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/11/2018 Sh Lalengmawia, MCS Zemabawk, Aizawl VERSUS Sh Sapchhawna Colney and Anr Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl 2:Lianthangpuia Maubawk Aizaw Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. H Laltanpuia for R1 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER JUDGEMENT Date : 04.09.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Page No.# 2/14 2. The present appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act 2005 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-1, Aizawl district, Aizawl in Civil Suit No.7/2010. 3. The case in the civil suit is that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had purchased a plot of land covered by LSC No.G-11/1992 belonging to one Lalbiaksanga Miller and it was mutated in his name on 02.02.2007. Lialbiaksanga Miller the previous owner had maintained the suit land by planting different kind of plants and trees which had attained maturity. In the last part of the year 2007, the appellant/defendant No.1 entered into the suit land and constructed a jhum hut and destroyed the plants and trees belonging to the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Upon hearing of the situation, he sent some of his relatives on 20.01.2008 to the spot and the defendant No.1/appellant was also present in the jhum hut. The appellant had shown patta No.147/1978 and stated that he was advised by the defendant No.2 and allowed by the Forest Department to maintain the land for a period of one year. However, upon enquiry, the concerned Forest officer denied the averments made by the appellant/defendant No.1. 4. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had stated that he also sent some of his relatives to take measurement about the number of plants and trees destroyed by the appellant/defendant No.1. After enquiry it was calculated that the appellant/defendant No.1 has destroyed 148 teak trees. The value of the teak trees destroyed by the appellant/defendant No.1 amounted to ₹5,63,358.40 and he has also destroyed other plants and trees along with the sign board belonging to the plaintiff. Page No.# 3/14 5. As the appellant/defendant No.1 had constructed the jhum hut without having any valid pass or patta in respect of the suit land, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 issued notice to the appellant/defendant No.1 on 29.05.2008 asking for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages and compensation. 6. As there was no favorable reply from the appellant/defendant No.1, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit registered as Civil Suit No.7/2010 for ownership, possession and for eviction of the defendant appellant from the land covered by LSC No. G-11/1992 and for compensation amounting to Rs.10,53,358.40/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and other consequential reliefs. 7. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant No.1 by filing written statement. The trial Court after taking evidence decreed the suit in favour the respondent No.1/plaintiff vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 by ordering that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to get reliefs as compensation to the tune of Rs.5,53,359.40/- plus Rs.15,000 as Court fees due to the illegal encroachment and trespass of his land covered under LSC No. G- 11/1992 located at Tuirial area and the appellant/defendant No.1 was directed to pay the said amount of money within 60 days. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant No.1 has filed the present RFA. 8. The respondent No.2/defendant No.2 passed away during the pendency of this appeal. 9. The trial court framed 4 issues: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? (ii) Whether the suit land is looked after by the plaintiff before the defendant No.1 maintained? Page No.# 4/14 (iii) Whether the valuation of the suit assessed by the plaintiff is reasonable as per the Review rate? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed, if so, to what extent? And who is liable? 10. The learned trial court examined the evidence but did not arrive at any finding in each issue. But in the, “Findings and Reasons thereof” at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment all the four issues have been clubbed together and the learned trial court held that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property. The court also held that issue 2 and 3 are decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff has planted teak trees within the suit land before the defendant 1 occupied the land. However, the trial court held that it has not been proved that 148 teak trees were destroyed by defendant 1 and therefore the plaintiff cannot be given the reliefs claimed but he is entitled to some reliefs from the defendants. Therefore issue (iv) was decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,53,359.40/- and Rs.15,000/-as court fees. To be paid by the defendant 1 within 60 Days from the date of the judgment. Grounds of Appeal: 11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that a plain reading of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has failed to apply its mind properly to the evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court concluded that it has not been proved that a number of 148 teak trees were destroyed by the defendant No.1 but at the same time the trial Court had illegally decided that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.5,53,358.40/- which was in fact the amount claimed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff as the value of the 148 teak trees. Page No.# 5/14 12. Learned senior counsel further submits that the evidence on record clearly proves that the appellant/defendant No.1 did not destroy any teak trees belonging to the plaintiff/respondent 1 and the claim made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is false and frivolous. 13. The appellant also submits that the trial Court has illegally decided that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to Court fees amounting to Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the appellant/defendant No.1. In fact, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has not paid Rs.15,000/- as Court fees at the time of filing the suit. Therefore, the question of awarding the respondent No.1/plaintiff Rs.15,000 towards Court fees does not arise at all. 14. The appellant further states that the PW evidence has not been able to prove that the appellant/defendant.No.1 has destroyed 148 teak trees belonging to the respondent No.1/plaintiff. In fact the respondent No.1/plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to prove that he had planted teak trees within the suit land and that the teak trees were all matured. 15. The appellant has also submitted that the document which was exhibited as exhibit P-2 was produced by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to prove the value of the 148 teak trees which were allegedly destroyed by the appellant/defendant No.1. Learned senior counsel submits that the said exhibit P-2 is a document which is not admissible as evidence as it has no signature; it is not authenticated and has no date. The appellant referring to section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act submits that such a document is not admissible in evidence as per the aforementioned sections of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Evidence Act states: “Secondary evidence – Secondary evidence means and includes- (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; Page No.# 6/14 (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it”. 16. However, in the present case learned senior counsel submits that the exhibit P-2 is just a piece of paper and cannot be admissible even as secondary evidence. 17. The appellant also submits that the title and ownership of the suit land was never disputed by the appellant/defendant No.1. In fact, the wife of the appellant/defendant No.1 as well as the appellant/defendant No.1 himself on being examined as DWs deposed that they were under the impression that the suit land did not belong to anyone and that it was a no man’s land. They deposed that as soon as they came to know that the land was owned by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, they withdrew themselves and never visited the suit land from that day. Therefore, the only issue in dispute before the trial Court was the question as to whether the appellant/defendant No.1 had destroyed 148 teak trees belonging to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and if so the value of the same. 18. The appellant further stated that the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has no basis as he has not been able to prove that there were 148 number of felled teaks trees on his suit land and that the appellant/defendant No.1 had destroyed the same. Moreover, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 also could not Page No.# 7/14 prove that the value of the 148 teak trees amounted to Rs.5,53,358.40/-. However, the learned trial Court without any basis came to a conclusion that the appellant/defendant No.1 was liable to compensate the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and to pay the decretal amount along with Rs.15,000/- as Court fees for the illegal encroachment and trespass of his land covered by LSC.No.G-11/1992. 19. In view of the above submissions, the appellant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge-1 Aizawl district, Aizawl in Civil Suit No.7/2010. 20. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of U.Sree vs U. Srinivas reported in (2013) 2 SCC 114 to support his contention that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. And it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon. Argument of the Respondent No.1:- 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the appellant/defendant No.1 had occupied the suit land from the year 2007 till early 2008. He submits that the previous owner of the suit land, Shri Miller/ PW- 2 in his cross-examination deposed that “it is not a fact that there are no teak trees when I sold my landed property to the plaintiff”. PW-2 also stated that the plaintiff did not mention that he and the former owner of the land had planted the teak trees inside the land. The PW-5 also deposed in his cross-examination that when he went to the site he saw the teak trees which had been cut at the ground level which means that the PW-5 saw the stumps of the teak trees which had been cut. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that the exhibit P-2 can be admissible under section 63(5) of the Evidence Act as an oral Page No.# 8/14 account of contents of a document given by a person who has himself seen it, as the exhibit P-2 was prepared by the PW-5. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that the DW/Lalruatluanga and the DW/Lalmuamkima are both manual laborers and they have deposed that in the year 2008 when they were employed by the defendant No.1/appellant for clearing the suit land the land was barren and there were no trees available. However, learned counsel submits that the appellant/defendant No.1 had illegally occupied the suit land in the year 2007. And therefore, when the aforementioned DWs went to the suit land, the teak trees had already been cut down and therefore, they could not have seen the teak trees. 24. Learned counsel further submits that it has been proved that the appellant/defendant No.1 had trespassed on his land and also cut down the teak trees and therefore the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit in his favour due to the illegal encroachment and trespass of his land by the appellant/defendant No.1 and prays that this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 in Civil Suit 7/2010. Points for determination: (i) Whether the appellant/defendant 1 encroached and trespassed on the land of the plaintiff/respondent 1 during 2007-2008? (ii) Whether the appellant/defendant 1 felled and destroyed 148 numbers of teak trees planted by the plaintiff/respondent 1 on the suit land, if so, whether the plaintiff/respondent 1 is entitled to any compensation and to what extent? Discussion and decisions:- Page No.# 9/14 25. The Court has given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels and has perused the trial Court records specifically the evidence adduced by the parties. 26. The PW-1/respondent No.1 on being cross-examined stated that the defendant no.1 had destroyed different kind of plants and teak trees during March 2008. He stated that he never visited the suit land personally. He also deposed that the persons that he sent for counting the teak trees and to take measurements were not persons having education. He also deposed that he did not collect the teak trees which were cut down inside his land when measurement and counting was done. PW-1/plaintiff also stated that he had abandoned the teak trees which had been cut at his own will and he had no intention to collect the teak tress for the purpose of selling. He also stated that he was not present when the teak trees were counted and calculated. He further deposed that he does not know the market value of the teak at that relevant time. PW-1/plaintiff in his cross-examination further deposed that he personally does not know who felled those teak trees inside his land. 27. PW-2/Miller the previous owner of the land in his cross-examination stated that he had nothing to say except what was told by the plaintiff regarding encroachment of the land and the felling of the teak trees inside the said land. PW-2 also stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff told him a lie or not as he did not have any proof. 28. PW-3 in his cross-examination stated that he saw some teak trees fallen on the ground when he visited the suit land but he did not see who had felled those teak trees. He also did not see the defendant or his men felling the teak trees. PW-3 further deposed that he did not know whether those teak trees were already felled long before he visited the suit land and he does not know Page No.# 10/14 the number of teak trees which have been felled and also did not count the number of teak trees felled inside the land. 29. PW-4 stated that he had visited the suit land many times as he was a relative of the plaintiff and he saw many teak trees and other fruit bearing trees on the said land. PW-4 also stated that he was asked by the plaintiff to go to the spot for inspection. When he reached the suit land the defendant and his men were already in the hut and the defendant said that those trees were cut down on his order. PW-4 was not cross-examined. 30. PW-5 deposed that some time in 2008 the plaintiff told him that his teak trees were destroyed by the defendant no.1. During the spot verification and counting of teak trees, they found that 148 teak trees have been cut down by the defendant No.1. On being cross-examined the PW-5 stated that he had not seen the defendant No.1 and his men felling the teak trees. He also stated that they saw the stumps of the teak trees which has been cut, however they did not find any teak logs inside the garden. PW-5 admitted that the assessment made at exhibit P-2 was made without seeing the teak logs. PW-5 further stated that the height of the teak trees mentioned at exhibit P-2 were written without seeing the logs of the trees and in the absence of the teak trees. He deposed that exhibit P-2 was made as per the demand of the plaintiff. On being re- examined, the PW-5 stated that the height of the teak trees was made without seeing the logs but on the assumption based on his departmental training and on being cross-examined further PW-5 stated that assumption is not a fact. 31. PW-6 also deposed in his cross-examination that he had not seen the defendant felling the teak trees inside the land of the plaintiff. 32. The defendant No.1/appellant examined 4 witnesses. All the DWs stated that when the suit land was temporarily occupied by the appellant/defendant Page No.# 11/14 No.1 it was a barren land covered by grass and shrubs and no one was developing the said land at that time and therefore, the appellant defendant No.1 in good faith presuming it to be a free land cleared the land to cultivate for one year. The DWs deposed that the appellant/defendant No.1 had no intention for possession of the land and as soon as he came to know that the land was owned by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 they discontinued cultivating the land and never visited the suit land from that day onwards. All the DWs in their cross-examination deposed that at the time when they went to the suit land for the first time, the land was barren and there were no teak trees except shrubs and grass. The DWs Lalruatluanga and Lalmuankima also deposed that the defendant No.1 told them to clear the land and that the defendant No.1 told them that he had a plan for one year cultivation. 33. This Court has also examined the Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had produced the exhibit P-2 to prove the value of the 148 numbers of teak trees which he claimed to have been cut down by the appellant/defendant No.1. A bare perusal of the exhibit P-2 shows that the said document is not signed by anyone. It is not authenticated and it is just a typed copy without mentioning the source or the origin of the same and also has no date. PW-5 admitted that he prepared exhibit P-2. 34. Upon appreciating the evidence on record we come to point no (i) for determination. The Civil Court can decree compensation to a plaintiff against a defendant for trespass on their land. The primary remedy for trespass to land is damages, which can be nominal, general or compensatory depending on the extent of harm caused. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. From the evidence as examined herein above, it has been proved that the appellant/defendant No.1 had committed trespass on the Page No.# 12/14 suit land for a period of one year during 2007-2008. Point no (i) is decided in the affirmative. 35. Regarding Point no (ii), it is the view of this Court after analyzing the evidence that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has not been able to prove as to how many teak trees were cut down nor has the value of the teak trees been proved. The learned trial Court also came to the finding that the claim of 148 teak trees being destroyed by the defendant No.1 has not been proved. However, contrary to its own finding the trial Court decreed an amount of Rs.5,53,359.40/- as compensation to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 which was the very amount which the plaintiff had claimed to be the value of the teak trees. Hence, this compensation amount has been arrived at by the learned trial Court without any basis. It has also not been proved that it was the appellant/defendant No.1 who had cut down the teak trees as the plaintiff/respondent 1 himself deposed in his cross-examination that he personally does not know who felled those teak trees inside his land. And none of the PWs had seen the appellant/defendant 2 felling the trees. Regarding the value of the teak trees I find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 that the said Exhibit P-2 has not been proved in accordance with law. As it was held in the case of U. Sree (supra), it is seen that no foundation has been laid by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the typed copy of exhibit P-2. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact the true copy of the original. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 could not have produced just any document in evidence specially in the form of secondary evidence without laying the foundation for leading the secondary evidence. The PW-5 in his cross examination had stated that he Page No.# 13/14 prepared the exhibit P-2 on the request of the plaintiff without seeing the teak logs. He had admitted that the exhibit P-2 was prepared in the absence of the teak trees and on the assumption based on his departmental training. Clearly, such a document cannot be admissible in evidence and certainly cannot be relied upon to assess the value of the teak trees. 36. Undoubtedly some damage has been caused to the standing plants and trees when the appellant/defendant No.1 cleared the suit land for cultivating. The DWs who were manual labourers had clearly deposed that they were engaged by the appellant/defendant No.1 to clear the land for cultivation for one year and for such trespass the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had to be compensated. In fact trespass is actionable per se, meaning that the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove the actual damage to claim compensation. The mere fact of unauthorized entry or occupation can be sufficient for a claim of compensation. The Point no (ii) is decided accordingly. 37. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 passed in Civil Suit 7/2010 is modified as the compensation awarded has been made without proper basis and without proper appreciation of the evidence leading to an inflated amount. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 is entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs) only as compensation from the appellant/defendant 1 for trespass, unauthorized occupation of the suit land and damages caused to plants and trees. The amount of Rs.15,000/- granted towards recovery of Court fees is also quashed and set aside. 38. The appellant/defendant No.1 shall pay the said decretal amount within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of this Order. Page No.# 14/14 39. With the above observations and modifications, the appeal is partly allowed. 40. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment and order. 41. Appeal stands disposed. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant