The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Ms. E.R. Savithri for SRl. C ll R VELU Counsel forthe Respondents: SMT. MANJARI S GANU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJATYA cRoss oBJE{CTIONS lSRl NO.9O899 OF 2OO3 IN AND CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.184 OF 2OO3 COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeai suit is frled by the appellants-defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.O2.2OO3 passed in O.S.No. 1ll3 of 1997 on the file of Additional Judge-cum-Vl Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the cross objections are filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in the suit.

2. Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming damages alleging that they are the owners to an extent of Ac.9.05 guntas of land. Thc 1s plaintiff is the resident of Nalgonda District and he looks after the agricultural operations in the land while the 2nd plaintiff is an employee in Provident Fund Office and assists 1st plaintiff in agricultural operations including procurement of seeds, purchase of insecLicides and pesticides etc. The l"t defendant is the manufacturer of seeds while the 2"d defendant is the seller of seeds. In March 1997 the plaintiffs got to know that the l"t defendant had started manufacturing of Hybrid Ridge Gourd seeds. According to 2 promotional parnphlets issued by the l st defen i rnt, the seeds were expected to produce attracLive fruits witf. thin ridges, a minimum length of 15 inches, and an average reight of 125- 14O grams. The pamphlets further claimed that ,..e first harvest would begin 55 days after sowing, the plant woul I bear fruit for up to 10O days, and the expected yield would be 5I to 65 tonnes per hectare. Believing the same to be true the p.r intilfs decided to cultivate ridge gourd as a second crop du: ng the period MarchJuly 1997. Accordingly, the 2"d plaintiff rurchased two kilograms of ridge gourd seeds from the 2"d def: rdant i.e., one kilogram on 28/29.02.1997 and another on 14.03.1997 @ Rs. 125 per packet. Additionally, they purchaserl 10 packets of local ridge gourd seeds at Rs.28.5O per packet. I he seeds were sown on the scheduled land on 24.C3.1997. I respite proper sowing and taking care, the crop did not yie < as expected. Although there was vegetative growth, flowerin 3 was minimal, and the fruits rvere bitter in taste and irregl lar in shape, rendering them unfit for sale. The average fruit r-eight after 55 days was less than 80 grams, and the yield fe I far below the promised 50-65 tonnes per hectare. The plaint.{ s incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,O4,6O0/- towards purchas : of manure, pesticides, labor, electricity, and borewell mainte: urce. 3

3. On 2O.O5.1997, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the I't defendant. The 2"d plaintiff met Mr. Suresh, Regional Manager of l"t defendant, who deputed Mr. Vaman 'Rao to inspcct the field ol 24.05.1997. Mr. Vaman Rao visited the site and reportedly prepared a report. However, no response was recerved from the lst defendant. The plaintiffs sent another letter on 26.05.1997, marking copies to ttre Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Assistant Director of Horticulture, and the Head Office of 1"t defendant. As there was no response for the said letter also, a reminder was issued on

02.06.1997. The oflicers of 1st defendant responded dismissively, asking the plaintiffs to take any action they deemed frt. On 08.07.1997, the plaintiffs addressed a letter to the Managing Director of 1"t defendant in Mumbai. Meanwhile, the Director of Horticulture directed the Assistart Director [o inspect the land, which was done on 15.O6.L997 in the presence of the l"t plaintiff. The State Seed Certifrcation Agency also wrote to the Additional Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on O3.O7.1997, recommending appropriate action against the lst defendant 4

4. The plaintiffs, having acted diligetr ty, incurred substantial expenditure and expected a yield o' 50-65 tonnes per hectare. Had the crop yielded as promised, t't :y would have earned a profit of not less than Rs.4,O0,O00,' . Due to the substandard quality of seeds supplied by the rl fendants, the plaintiffs suffered loss and they are entitle Rs. 1,04,600/ - towards expenses and Rs.4,O0.( I to recover 0O/ - towards expected prolits, amounting to Rs.5,04,600/- tou r rds damages.

5. The defendants hled their written statr nent denying knowledge of whether the plaintiffs are the < wners of the schedule land, they did not specifrcally deny pt rchase of two kilograms of seeds by the plaintiffs, but disputecl [he c]aim that Rs. 1,0a,6O0/- had been spent on agricultural expenses for cultivating the crop with the seeds purchased frc m them. They denied that the Assistant Director of Agriculturt: had inspected the lreld on 15.06. L997 and contended that t :rey were not parties to enquiry held by the Assistant Directo ' rendering the report non-binding on them. They further assert d that, under the Seeds Act, only the Seeds Inspector is comtr,r tent to assess seed quality. The defendants claimed that the r;r eds had been laboratory-tested and met the required standar<lr , as indicated 5 on the tags attached to the seed packets. They denied any defect in the seeds and alleged that the plaintiffs' crop failure was due to several factors i.e., the land was unsuitable and not properly prepared for raising crop; the climate and temperature during the relevant period was unfavorable; the seed bags were carelessly stored arld exposed to moisture; there was insufficient rainfall and inadequate watering; natural or organic manure was not applied; the crop was neglected; ald unquaiiiied laborers were employed in carrying out the agricultural operations, resulting in damage to the crops. The defendants maintained that the seed germination was normal and satisfactory, and suggested that the plaintiffs may have used duplicate seeds from other sources. They further asserted that the amount ciaimed by the plaintiffs was exaggerated and that the claim for damages was entirely false.

6. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.l and 2 were examined and trxs.A. 1 to A. 14. Exs.X.l to X.3 were also marked. On behalf of the defendants, Dw. 1 was examined and Ex.B.l was marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit and awarded damages of Rs.2,50,0O0/-. 6 Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have f I :d this appeal and plaintiffs have filed cross appeal.

7. Heard Ms. E.R.Savithri, learned counseL appearing on behalf of Sri C.M.R.Ve1u, learned cour tel for the appellants/ defendants and Smt Manjari S.( anu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs

8. The contention of the appellalts/ defendz I ts is that the 1"t plaintiff has not appeared before the trial co r- :t and did not give his evidence. There is no documentary eri lence to show that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessor; cf agricultural land of Ac.9.05 guntas and raised crop totally in 'iolation of the directions issued in Ex.A. 14. There is no doc - rrentary proof that they purchased ridge gourd seeds from the c :fendants and the document under Ex.A.2 shows that the plairL iffs purchased only 95O grams of seeds which is not sufhci, nt to sow in Ac.9.05 guntas of 1and. It is further contended th t the required seed rate is 1 .25 kg per hectare and Ac.9.05 gurr as require 5.2 kgs of seeds, but the plaintiffs sowed only 95O gra ms of seeds in their land which is less than 1/5tr, of the sugge; ed rate. The trial Court failed to observe Lhat the defendants,l d not give any gualarrtee and there is no supporting evidence to prove that the 7 defendants herein suggested them to raise ridge guard crop and promised good yield. The plaintiffs planted the seeds contrary to the guidelines issued and the required distance from plant to plant and row to row is 60 cms and 180 cms, whereas, the plaintiffs maintained distance of 6 feet and 10 feet respectively. She further contended that the plaintiffs did not complain of the alieged defect to the Seed Inspector and the seeds samples collected by the Advocate Commissioner for seed analysis test cannot be the original seeds supplied by the defendants. The sample seeds did not have any identification and the name of the hybrid Ridge Gourd is not mentioned on the packet. As such, the report of the AD Agriculture of the Seed Testing Lab is incomplete and invalid. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court by allowing this appeal.

9. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed iross objections stating that though they claimed Rs.5,04,6O0/- towards damages, the trial Court without considering the evidence on record on proper perspective granted only Rs.2,50,000/- which is not sufficient for the loss caused to them. It is also alleged that trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiffs have claimed excess amount on the basis of guesswork and probabilities. The trial Court 8 ought to have seen that the appellants have giv<,t details of the expenditure incurred in para 5 of the plaint wh ch consists of manure expenditure and labour charges and ,ught to have relied on the report of Advocate Commissioner ; ating that the land is completely fenced and properly mainta I ed, composite manures are also spread over at each pot ho.t s of the ridge gourd plant. The trial Court ought to have conr; lered that the minimum price of ridge gourd is from Rs.10/- tc ts.12l- per kg and considering the promised yield, Rs.4,O0,0C ( / - is claimed. It is further alleged that the trial Court relied on he evidence of Dw.1 on probable expenditure for raising crop for arriving at the quantum of damages, which is not in accordanr:r with law. .As such, prayed this Court to al1ow the cross appe by granting compensation of Rs. 5,04,600/ -.

10. Basing on the above submissions, now tr : points to be determined are

1. Whether the plaintiffs established that the reeds supplied by the defendants were defective ?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by ttt trial Court is sufficient ? 9 POINT NOs.l AND 2: 1 1. To prove the case, the piaintiffs in the trial Court examined Pws. 1 and 2. The evidence of pw. 1 is that they purchased seeds from l.t defendant and sowed in Ac.9.05 guntas of land and spent Rs. I,04,600/- but there was no yield from the crop as promised by the defendants. According to Pw.t he gave complaint under Ex.A.3 on 2O.O5.I992 arrd despite it there was no response, whereas, Dw. I in the cross_ examination stated that he deputed Mr. Vamal Rao to inspect the field. Accordingly, Vaman Rao made inspection and he stated that he had no knowledge whether he submitted any report after inspection. According to him, they will file report when it is required to be referred to the Research and Development otherwise, they will not file any report. Though Dw. 1 received complaint and sent a person for inspection, no reply was given to the plaintiffs. The absence of giving reply would show falsity of the statement made by Dw. 1. Further, the plaintiffs sent notice to the lsr defendant under Ex.A.7 ald he received the same. The Dw. 1 in his cross-examination stated that he did not remember whether reply was given to Ex.A.3, whereas Exs.A.3 ald A.7 shows that the head office and manufacturing unit called for explanation from the 1"r 10 defendant in response to the complaint under E>:. \.3 but he did not remember whether any written report or o al report was given to the said explanation and he did not ca I for temarks from Vaman Rao.

12. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased I kgs of seeds, but the crop did not give the promised yield. TLr contention of the defendants on this aspect is that the lancl i ; not suitable and they have not followed the directions issued Jy'hen there is a suggestion to Dw. 1 that report of Vaman Rao s 'rows that the seeds are defective, he stated that he is not awar , of the same, which shows that there is no inspection report rvailable with the defendants. The Advocate Commissioner l as appointed during the course of trial and he filed report un,l rr Ex.X.2 and no objections were received against the said report. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the.field in t-t : presence of both parties and according to his report, the.r is complete fencing to the land, the plaintiffs properly rr.: z intained and manure was spread over to each pot holes of t re plant, the fruits of the plants were dried up, about 8 fruit; fiom various corners of the land was coilected, that the lengtl rf the fruit is between I feet 4 inches with 6 inches to 8 inches i t round. The 11 report shows that plaintiffs followed the procedure and the directions of the defendants and the Assistant Director of Horticulture. Pw.2 filed Ex.X. I report wherein he stated that he visited the land of Ac.1O.00 in Vasalamarri of Turkapaliy Mandal, the seeds were sown in the iand and the average length of the fruit was only 1 5 to 18 cms arld that the fruits were smooth on the surface and bitter in taste and the number of fruits for each plant was only 2 or 3 and they were not straight and were coming up in all shapes, which supports the case of the plaintiffs. Though he was cross-examined nothing was elicited against his report and the identification of samples shows that the sample packets did not have any identification whereas, the Advocate Commissioner collected samples and they were sent to the lab, through process of Court and the lab conducted tests regarding germination of seeds and gave a lrnding that.germination recorded was between 47 to 57%o while minimum standard of germination required was 607o. It is also admitted by Dw. 1 in his cross-examination when he was confronted with the report. Despite absence of grow out test, the test conducted by the authorities clearly indicates the sub- standard quality of the seeds. The report shows that the plaintiff purchased seeds from l.t defendant and sowed in his t2 land admeasuring Ac.9.05 guntas of land and it ras not yielded as per the advertisement of 1st defendant, compl] nt was hled bY the plaintiffs and the land was inspected by t I defendant, Seeds Ofltcer and the Advocat(l : Officer of I't lommissioner. Though the Seeds Officer inspected the field n' r report is filed, but the report under Ex.X. 1 and the Advocat: Commissioner report under Ex.X.2 shows that plaintiffs follo'*'r:' the directions of 1"t defendant and the lab report shows tha germinati<tn is not in accordance with the specihcations. Hetrr:' the seeds are defective due to which loss is , it shows that caused to the plaintiffs.

13. According to the plaintiffs, they spent ln amount of Rs. 1,O4,60O/ - towards expenditure and there i:; eo evidence on record to show the price of ridge gourd on the c ate of cause of action. In the absence of the same, the trial rl >urt calculated the same as Rs.2,5O,O(X)/- towards damagt : , whereas the contention of the cross-objector is that it is r,' t suflicient for Ac.1O.O0 and they already spent Rs. 1,04,:)Ol- and the expected proht was Rs.4,00,000/-. But the tri I Cor:Lrt granted only Rs.2,5O,OOO/- though they claimed the . i te of the ridge gourd at Rs.10 to 12. In the absence of evidenc: the trial Court 13 has rightly calculated the price and granted compensation. As such, no interference is required in the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingiy, the points are answered.

14. IN THE RESULT, the City Civil Court Appeal and the Cross-Objections (SR) are dismissed. No costs. Miscelianeous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR Note: This order dated 71 .10.2025 passed in Cross Objections (SR) No.90899 of 2003 tnIAnd CCCA.No.1 84 of 2003 is amended by correcting as "Rs.2,50,000/- instead of "Rs.2,00,000/- at line Nos.5 and g in Paragraph No.13 as per the Court order dated 17.12.2025 passed in t.A.No.1 of 2025. This amended order substitues the earlier order dispatched on 21-11-2O25. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-Vl Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. C M RVELU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SMT. MANJART S GANU Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSL a I -f HIGH COURT DATED:17l10/2025 17t',t212025 JUDGMENT Jtt,ti a' a: I $ l[ll ?Jt * L CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.90899 OF'2023 IN/AND CCCA.No.184 of 2003 DISMISSING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 0\,^ \oD