RAMAMURTHI Vs. A CH DANAYYA ALIAS THATHALU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.CHINNA DANAYYA ALIAS THATHALU.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) DURING the period for which the plaintiff claimed damages, he did not establish his title to the salt pans. He was therefore, an inter-meddler or a trespasser title to the salt pans having vested in the Government. It is true that by virtue of an order passed by this Court in an interlocutory application pending disposal of the writ petition filed by the plaintiff asserting rights of ownership to the salt pans, he was permitted to manufacture salt after obtaining necassary licence from the concerned authority. It is also true that the lower Court found that during the said period, defendants 1 to 5 trespased upon the salt pans. It now turns out that the plaintiff is as much a trespasser as defendants 1 to 5 are. In my opinion, one traspasser cannot sue another trespasser for damages, as, the other trespasser is always exposed to the risk of being made liable for damages, if an action is brought by the rightful owner. In this view, the conclusion reached by the lower Court does not call for any interference. The Second Appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed but without costs. No leave. G.V.K.R. S.A. Dismissed;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.