Short Note : Sometimes by the end of May 1966, defendants 2 and 3 came to the Mills and inspected the logs. They were then requested by the plaintiff to remove that property and release him from Supratnama, but they told him that the question of taking necessary sleps for illegal cutting of the logs is under considera1ion and the logs would be removed shortly after paying the ground rent and the wages incurred for the watchman. 2. Since the property was not removed, the plaintiff made application to the Collector for discharging him as a Supratdar, removal of the property, payment of ground rent and wages of the watchman. Then it was on or about 6-8-1967 that the plaintiff as informed to deliver the said logs to Deputy Ranger. The property was thus removed by 15-8-1967. The plaintiff claimed ground rent from 19-5-1966 to 15-8-1967 at the rate of Rs. 50 P.M. He also claimed wages paid to the watchman for this period at the rate of Rs. 50 P. M. Thus, his total claim was for Rs. 1,500. The suit was partly decreed by trial Court but was dismissed in first appeal in toto. 3. Held: Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that the findings are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and have been arrived at by ignoring the salutary principles of law. He in this connection relied on a decision of this Court in Gulla Vs. Harisingh, 1970 JLJ 207 , in which reliance was placed on Sardar Guru Buxsingh v. Gurudayal Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230 . 4. In the present case the only witness examined on behalf of the defendants is Abdul Sattar (DW I), and neither defendant No.2 Shri H. R. Shukla nor defendant No.3 Shri R. K. Sharma stepped into the witness box. In the plaint as also in the evidence of the plaintiff there are statements which, if they were false, as was the case of the defendants, should have been denied on oath in the witness-box. Neither of the two Courts below has considered the effect of non-examination of defendants 2 and 3 and rejected the plaintiff's evidence just by finding certain discrepancies, most of which were not even put to the plaintiff in his cross-examination. For this reason, the findings in that behalf are vitiated and in the circumstances cannot be treated as binding. 5. Neither of the two Courts below has considered the effect of non-examination of defendants 2 and 3 and rejected the plaintiff's evidence just by finding certain discrepancies, most of which were not even put to the plaintiff in his cross-examination. For this reason, the findings in that behalf are vitiated and in the circumstances cannot be treated as binding. 5. The question remains only in respect of the expenditure for watchman. The plaintiff has, testified that Chandanlal (PW 2) was paid Rs. 50 P. M. for that purpose. Chandanlal has also stated that he was employed as a Chowkidar and was paid the monthly amount at the rate of Rs. 50 P. M. It has come in the plaintiff's evidence that the fact of a watchman having been employed at Rs. 50 P. M. was even told to defendants 2 and 3 when they had come to the Mills 8-10 days later. They had assured payment of that amount. As stated by the plaintiff, this payment to the watchman was being made from his pocket and not from the Mills. Merely because of certain omissions in this behalf in some of the applications submitted by the plaintiff, his unrequited testimony on oath cannot be rejected. The evidence of Abdul Sattar (DW 1) firstly does not at all inspire any confidence. Besides this, his evidence relates only to the day when the attachment was effected and does not at all negative the plaintiff's talks with the defendants on subsequent occasion. For these reasons, the plaintiff's claim of Rs. 725 for the expenditure incurred in keeping a watchman deserves to be allowed. Consequently, he is also entitled to the notice charges but instead of Rs. 50 he would get only Rs. 5 On that count. 1970 JLJ 207 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.