PERMOD KOHLI,J - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2004 passed by District Judge, Patiala whereby, appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent-Municipal Committee Samana has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 26.2.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Samana has been set aside and consequently, the suit dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant herein filed a suit for recovery as compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on account of damages caused due to overflowing of drain of the Municipal Committee into his fields. The trial Court assessed the damage at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per kanal per annum and passed decree for Rs. 61950/-. In the appeal preferred, the first appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court recorded that there is no evidence to establish the damage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under appeal. From the trial Court judgment, it appears that except the plaintiff's statement, no other evidence was produced for the assessment of the damages. The damages determined by the trial Court at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per kanal per month is only presumptive and without any evidence whatsoever. Even the plaintiff's statement does not support this. There is no evidence regarding the quality and quantity of crop prior to the discharge of water in his fields and during the year the water was discharged in the fields. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court was not justifying in decreeing the suit for damages. The first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;