- (1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 13.7.2006, made in A.S.No.49 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arani, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2001, made in O.S.No.265 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Polur.
(2.) THE defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.265 of 1999, is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. THE suit had been filed praying for a decree to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards damages, with subsequent interest, at the rate of 12%, from the date of the plaint, till the date of the realisation of the entire suit amount, and for costs. The plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the suit property, as it had been allotted to him, under a registered partition deed, dated 27.7.1993. It had also been stated that the defendant is having cultivable lands, on the northern side of the suit property, belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had cultivated sugar cane crops in the suit property and it was ready for harvest, during the first week of July, 1999. The defendant had also cultivated his land and he had harvested the sugar cane crops cultivated therein. Thereafter, on 4.7.1999, without taking precautionary steps in safeguarding the standing crops in the suit property belonging to the plaintiff, the defendant had set fire to the dried sugar cane leaves, causing damages to the plaintiff, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The plaintiff had also lodged a police complaint against the defendant, before the Kadaladi police, under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.265 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Polur. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, the averments and allegations made in the plaint had been denied. It has been stated that there is no truth in the allegations made by the plaintiff that the standing sugar cane crops in the land belonging to the plaintiff had been destroyed, due to the negligence of the defendant in setting fire to the dried sugar cane leaves in his land. The sugar cane crops of the plaintiff could have been destroyed by accidental fire, as it had happened in the sugar cane fields belonging to certain other persons, whose lands were situated in the same area. The averments made in the plaint that the defendant had, intentionally, set fire to the sugar cane fields belonging to the plaintiff is only a figment of imagination. The averments made by the plaintiff, regarding the lodging of a criminal complaint against the defendant, is without any basis.
(3.) IT has been stated that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff only with the intention of extracting money from the defendant. Since, the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious, it is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary costs. In view of the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, the trial Court had framed the following issues for its consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiff's sugar cane crops had been destroyed, due to the act of the defendant? 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, as claimed in the plaint ? 3. To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?" ;