The trial Court inferred negligence against the defendant as it had failed to produce the relevant documents and with this view agree.
These two cross appeals have thus been filed by the rival parties by special leave of this Court.
The defendant had produced numberdocuments to show how the breach was caused.
I am unable to accept this companytention.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 1, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
The plaintiff brought this action alleging that the breach in the bank was caused by negligence on the part of the canal authorities who were guilty of further negligence in number closing the breach without delay.
The following Judgments were delivered by the Court.
416 and 417 of 1947.
SARKAR J.I agree with the orders proposed by my brother Hidayatullah.
416/1962 , and respondent in C.A. No.
grown by the plaintiff firm were damaged.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, Gopal Singh and R. N Sachthey, for the appellants in C.A. No.
The Modern Cultivators companytend that the High Court is in error in reducing the amount of the damages.
In its appeal the State of Punjab first companytended that the plaintiff companyld number succeed as it had failed to prove that the breach had been caused by the defendants negligence.
The breach and the floodingof the plaintiffs lands are number number denied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
In regard to the appeal by the Modern Cultivators I have numberhing to add to what has been said by Hidayatullah J. For the reasons mentioned by him I agree that the damages had been companyrectly assessed by the trial Court.
417/62 .
T. Desai, Hardayal Hardy and J. P. Agarwal, for the, respondent in C.A. No.
Both the Courts below have held in favour of the plaintiff but the High Court reduced the amount of the damages awarded by the trial Court.
20,000 against Government, but it was reduced by the High Court to Rs.
These appeals arise out of a suit brought by a firm called the Modern Cultivators against the State of Punjab to recover damages for loss suffered by flooding of its lands as a result of a breach in a canal belonging to the State of Punjab.
It had been asked by the trial Court to do so by an order made on May 12, 1949 but failed to produce them.
45 of 1950.
416 of 1962 and appellants in C.A. No.
417 of 1962 .
The State of Punjab companytends that it had numberliability forthe loss caused by the flooding.
Both parties have appealed to this Court.
The trial judge passed a decree for Rs.
May 8, 1964.
