JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA, assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This is a first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in connection with case no. Title Suit 16 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned court had decreed the suit awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, as projected by the learned trial court is as under: "2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit land measuring 2.92 acres under Khatian No. 95 was owned and possessed by one Narad Mani Tripura and after the death of Narad Mani Tripura and his wife their sole successor Surjya Prasad Tripura became the owner and possessor of the suit property. During lifetime of Narad Mani Tripura he permitted one Narayan Chandra Tripura to possess a part of suit property as a permissive possessor. However, Surjya Prasad Tripura after becoming the owner and possessor the suit property asked said Narayan Chandra Tripura to vacate the suit property and accordingly he vacated the same. Surjya Prasad Tripura due to some urgent requirement sold out the total plot in two equal parts to the plaintiff No. 1 Rakhal Mog by a registered Sale Deed No. 1-53 dated 06-01-2006 and to Rajendra Tripura, i.e., the plaintiff No. 2 by a Registered Sale Deed vide No. 1-54 dated 06-01-2006 and handed over the possession of the whole suit land to them. After taking possession the plaintiffs uprooted the trees available on the suit property and cleared up all jungles and in the month of June, 2006 planted rubber seedlings and engaged three number of day labourers at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day for such purpose. However, on 05-09-2008 some forest officials, namely, Achintya Datta, Braja Gopal Debbarma, Kanu Debnath, Prantosh Das, Chandi Tripura and Bishnupada Debnath in uniform suddenly trespassed into the suit property damaged the bamboo fencing as well as cut down all the rubber plants. 150/- per day for such purpose. However, on 05-09-2008 some forest officials, namely, Achintya Datta, Braja Gopal Debbarma, Kanu Debnath, Prantosh Das, Chandi Tripura and Bishnupada Debnath in uniform suddenly trespassed into the suit property damaged the bamboo fencing as well as cut down all the rubber plants. The plaintiffs lodged one Criminal case in the Court of the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura and in that case the trespassers were convicted. However, the plaintiffs could not file Civil suit in this respect in due time and sought for exemption from the limitation under Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed total amount of Rs. 14,20,000/- from the defendants as compensation with 12% interest. Hence, this suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement. In the written statement the defendants denied the ownership of the defendants over the suit land as well as denied the fact that the forest personnel damaged the rubber plantation and fencing available on the suit land. The defendants also pleaded that though the forest officials were convicted on the same fact but they were acquitted by the Learned Appellate Court and so the defendants have no liability in this suit. Accordingly, the defendants urged to dismiss the suit with cost. 4. At the time of filing this suit the plaintiffs filed one petition under Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C. seeking exemption from the limitation for claiming the compensation which was granted by this Court vide Order dated 24-08-2012." 4. After exchange of pleadings following issues were framed: "(I) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? (II) Whether the defendants and their men or agents damaged the standing rubber plantation of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation/damage amounting to Rs. 14,20,000/- from the defendants? (III) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men or agents from entering into the suit land? (IV) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief/reliefs?" 5. Evidences were recorded by the parties to the suit. After completion of recording evidences and having heard the learned counsel, the learned trial court decreed the suit, as stated here-in-above. (IV) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief/reliefs?" 5. Evidences were recorded by the parties to the suit. After completion of recording evidences and having heard the learned counsel, the learned trial court decreed the suit, as stated here-in-above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the principal-respondents i.e. Conservator of Forest, Government of Tripura and another, have challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court by way of preferring the instant first appeal. 6. Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not disputed the ownership of the land in question over which the rubber trees were planted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants only has disputed the factum of number of rubber trees over the land of the plaintiffs. Relying upon the evidence of PW-9, who according to Mr. Sahu, learned counsel is an expert regarding rubber plantation, has submitted that according to PW-9 around 350 numbers of rubber trees can be planted over the land. So, according to learned counsel, the quantum of damage as assessed by the learned trial court should be less than that of the amount as awarded by the learned trial court out of compensation for damaging the planted rubber trees over the land. Mr. Sahu, has further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce any scrap of paper in respect of the fact that he planted 700 numbers of trees over his land on the ground that he could not produce any such paper from which it can be garnered the source of purchasing rubber siblings for rubber plantation. Another submission made by learned counsel is that some portion of the land was not within the possession of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed an application for adducing evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC wherein he tried to project his case that on the aforesaid date the forest officials did not enter into the suit land. 7. To resist the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs had adduced nine witnesses in support of his case and all the witnesses have deposed that they had seen the plaintiffs to plant as many as 700 numbers of rubber trees over the land in question. 7. To resist the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs had adduced nine witnesses in support of his case and all the witnesses have deposed that they had seen the plaintiffs to plant as many as 700 numbers of rubber trees over the land in question. The witnesses have also deposed the cost incurred by the plaintiffs to plant those trees and to nourish the same for 3-4 years. All the witnesses have deposed that on the fateful date the forest officials with their attire had trespassed into the land. The plaintiff raised objection under what authority they have entered into the suit land, but, they became furious and trespassed into the land and cut down all the rubber plantations causing serious financial loss to the plaintiffs. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further submitted that expert evidence is not a conclusive evidence as contemplated under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Deb, has further submitted that the factum of a case can be proved by oral evidence if it inspires the confidence of the court. According to learned senior counsel, the defendant-appellants have failed to shake the evidence of the witnesses as adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Moreover, he has brought to the notice of the court that a criminal case was also lodged against the persons who trespassed into the land and in that case charge-sheet was submitted against Kanu Debnath, Achinta Datta, Brajagopal Debnath, Prantosh Debnath, Chandi Tripura, Bishnupada Debnath. That criminal case was concluded convicting and sentencing the above noted persons. 8. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel at this juncture has submitted that in appeal all the persons were acquitted. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the records. 10. At the outset, I would like to deal with the petition for adducing additional evidence. Having considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my opinion, by filing such application for adducing additional evidence, I find that the appellants had tried to fill-up the lacuna which they committed before the learned trial court. The appellants have tried to project a case by adducing additional evidence that the accused persons had never visited the land of the plaintiffs. They were elsewhere. The appellants have tried to project a case by adducing additional evidence that the accused persons had never visited the land of the plaintiffs. They were elsewhere. This plea has already been taken by the appellants though, it was not specifically averred in the written statement. The witnesses who adduced evidence on behalf of the appellants, in their examination-in-chief have stated this fact, but, since this fact had not been averred or pleaded in their written statement, learned trial court did not accept such statement made in examination-in-chief being the same beyond the pleadings. It appears from the findings of the learned trial court that the appellants had enough opportunities to make this plea and to plead it in their written statement, which they failed to do so. Further, in the opinion of this court, the plea which ought to have been taken by the defendants in their written statement, but, was not taken, cannot be done at a later stage by adducing additional evidence to fill-up the lacuna. It is not the object of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Hence, the submission as well as the petition of the learned counsel is rejected. 11. Regarding furnishing of the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the forest personnel, I have taken judicial notice of the said judgment. This judgment may not have enough relevance in deciding the instant suit to determine the quantum of damage as incurred by the plaintiffs. It is settled proposition of law that the decision of a criminal case cannot form or influence the decision of a civil suit. Hence, I am confined to the materials and evidences, as surfaced in the present suit. 12. On careful perusal of the materials on record and the evidences let in by the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, in my opinion, the plaintiffs have been able to prove the case that on the fateful date i.e. on 05.09.2008, the forest officials had entered into the land of the plaintiffs and destroyed the rubber plantations. They had no permission to enter into the land of the plaintiffs and without any authority they cut down the rubber trees planted by the plaintiffs. 13. They had no permission to enter into the land of the plaintiffs and without any authority they cut down the rubber trees planted by the plaintiffs. 13. All the witnesses have categorically stated that after purchase of the suit property the plaintiffs having found that jhum cultivation and other cultivations were not profitable, then, they uprooted all the trees that stood over the suit land, and after reclamation and development, in the month of April, 2006 brought the entire area of the suit land under rubber cultivation and accordingly, they planted 700 numbers of rubber seedlings around the suit property. Such fact has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7. More particularly, PW-4 and PW-7 have categorically deposed that they worked in the suit land for reclamation and uprooting the trees and terracing for re-shaping the land suitable for rubber plantation. Added to it, PW-2 deposed that both the plaintiffs purchased about 700 numbers of rubber seedlings from him and planted those plants on the entire suit land. During their cross examination nothing material to rebut such evidence was elicited. 14. Furthermore, all the witnesses have stated that the forest officials were in uniform. Hence, I cannot make any different opinion than that of the opinion of the learned trial court that the plaintiffs had uprooted the earlier cultivated plants from the land in question and planted 700 numbers of rubber seedlings over the land. PW-2, has confirmed the purchase and planting of such seedlings over the land of the plaintiffs. As such, the submission of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants that there is no proof as regards the purchase of the rubber seedlings, is repelled. 15. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is to prove his own case. First burden lies upon him to prove the fact what he has stated in his plaint, then, onus is shifted upon the defendant. If onus has been proved by the defendant, then, there will be reverse onus upon the plaintiff, and this shifting of onus is continuous. First burden lies upon him to prove the fact what he has stated in his plaint, then, onus is shifted upon the defendant. If onus has been proved by the defendant, then, there will be reverse onus upon the plaintiff, and this shifting of onus is continuous. In the instant case, when the plaintiffs have been able to prove their case regarding the fact that they purchased the rubber seedlings from PW-2 and planted 700 numbers of trees on the land in question, in this situation, onus is shifted upon the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs have not purchased the rubber seedlings from PW-2 and that there is no plantation over the land in question. 16. In furtherance thereof, Exbt. 9, the report of Tahsildar proves the fact that there were rubber plantations over the suit property and as per the statements of the plaintiffs, the forest officials cut down the rubber plants. Such report was prepared on 05.09.2009 which shows the genuineness of the plaintiffs' case. 17. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their case regarding the fact of destroying the rubber plantation by the forest officials having trespassed into the land of the plaintiffs. 18. While ascertaining the quantum of damage, the learned trial court has held thus: "17. Now, this court is to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the compensation amount as prayed for or not. With respect to compensatory damages, a defendant is liable to a plaintiff for all the natural and direct consequences of the defendant's wrongful act. Remote consequences of a defendant's act or omission cannot form the basis for an award of compensatory damages. The measure of compensatory damages must be real and tangible. In other words, compensatory damages are recovered in payment for actual injury which does not include punitive damages. It is a sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. These damages provide a plaintiff with the monetary amount necessary to replace what was lost and nothing more. 18. It is already discussed that the plaintiffs suffered monetary loss due to the unlawful activity of the forest personnel for which the defendants are vicariously liable. These damages provide a plaintiff with the monetary amount necessary to replace what was lost and nothing more. 18. It is already discussed that the plaintiffs suffered monetary loss due to the unlawful activity of the forest personnel for which the defendants are vicariously liable. Law of tort is clear that where there is infringement of right there is remedy against such infringement. In this suit also the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation for the actual loss suffered by the plaintiffs. As per the plaint plaintiffs incurred following loss: 1. cost of uprooting standing trees, removing of weeds, dressing and terracing earth of the entire suit land-Rs. 75,000/-; 2. cost of 700 nos of rubber seedlings @ Rs. 50/- each-Rs. 35,000/-; 3. cost of raising boundary fencing by bamboo around the entire suit land for protecting the plantation-Rs. 60,000/-; 4. cost of fertilizer and insecticides etc.-Rs. 50,000/-; 5. Labour payment of three labourers a day during the period from 01-07-2006 to 05-09-2008 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day-Rs. 3,50,000/-; 6. Professional loss of the plaintiff Rakhal Mog during the period from 01-07-2006 to 05-09-2008 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day for the services rendered by him-Rs. 1,50,000/- In total-Rs. 7,20,000/-. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- further for the prospective losses which would be incurred by them. 19. The plaintiffs adduced the evidence of P.W. 9 Development Officer of Rubber Board, Regional Office as an expert on the matter of approximate profit and expenditure of rubber plantation. As per the evidence of the P.W. 9 economic life of a rubber tree about twenty years and a rubber tree can produce 3.26 K.Gs. rubber per year at least for fourteen years after six/seventh year of age. He also deposed that cost of rubber per K.G. was Rs. 182/- only as on 2010-11. He also deposed that 350 rubber plants can be accommodated in one hectare of land. It is also mentioned that for the production of a rubber plant Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- is required for its whole life. He also deposed that cost of rubber per K.G. was Rs. 182/- only as on 2010-11. He also deposed that 350 rubber plants can be accommodated in one hectare of land. It is also mentioned that for the production of a rubber plant Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- is required for its whole life. Though from the evidence of the P.W. 9 after assessing the number of rubber plants which can be planted in a particular area of land it is found that total 410 plants can be raised in 2.92 acres of land which is the measurement of the suit land of this suit, but from the plaint as well as from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 it is clear that 700 rubber seedlings were planted around the suit land and so it cannot be discarded that there were 700 rubber plants over the suit property. The cross deposition of the P.W. 3 is clear about the fact that total cost amounting to Rs. 7/8 lacs was incurred for the fencing and rubber plantation. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7 this is also clear that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was invested for uprooting and reclamation of the suit land. The evidence of P.W. 2 is also unrebutted on the fact that the plaintiffs purchased 700 number of rubber plants at the rate of Rs. 50/- each, i.e., Rs. 35,000/- in total. Out of three labourers two labourers deposed before this Court as P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 that they worked in the rubber plantation process in the suit land w.e.f. 01-07-2007 to 05-09-2008 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day in total Rs. 3,50,000/-. Similarly, cost of raising boundary fencing and cost of fertilizer and insecticides etc. were Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively as came out from the pleading as well as evidence of the P.Ws. 1 to 7. So, if we assess the figures together, i.e., (Rs. 75,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/-+ Rs. 3,50,000/-+ Rs. 60,000/-+ Rs. 50,000/-) it will reach to the figure Rs. 5,70,000/-. Matter of professional loss is to be proved by better evidence but no cogent evidence could be produced by the plaintiffs in this respect. So, no compensation in this respect can be granted. 20. So, if we assess the figures together, i.e., (Rs. 75,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/-+ Rs. 3,50,000/-+ Rs. 60,000/-+ Rs. 50,000/-) it will reach to the figure Rs. 5,70,000/-. Matter of professional loss is to be proved by better evidence but no cogent evidence could be produced by the plaintiffs in this respect. So, no compensation in this respect can be granted. 20. During argument Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that prospective loss as per the evidence of the P.W. 9 if included the compensation amount shall raise upto Rs. 29,96,000/- which is more than the amount claimed. It is admitted fact that the rubber plants were cut down at the age of their two years and as per the evidence of the P.W. 9 a rubber plant becomes productive from the age of 6/7 years. As discussed earlier compensatory damages can be allowed on the direct consequence or loss incurred by the plaintiffs and no remote loss can be taken into account for that purpose. In this suit the prospective loss which could be incurred by the plaintiffs is too remote to taken into account and so for that purpose no damages can be granted. Thus, after all such discussions this Court is of the view that the defendants are liable to pay for direct losses incurred by the plaintiffs, i.e., an amount of Rs. 5,70,000/-. But the defendants shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the principal amount per annum w.e.f. 05-09-2008 till payment of whole amount to the plaintiffs. No other relief or reliefs can be granted to the plaintiffs. Thus, these Issues are decided accordingly. 21. ISSUE NO. (III): In this Issue this Court is to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants. It is already proved by adducing evidence that the forest personnel in course of their duty trespassed into the land of the plaintiffs without any valid order from the authority. It is also proved that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit property as the allottees. So, the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs should not be disturbed by the defendants without due course of law. Perpetual injunction can be granted if there is a possibility or threat that the defendants shall invade the land of the plaintiffs. So, the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs should not be disturbed by the defendants without due course of law. Perpetual injunction can be granted if there is a possibility or threat that the defendants shall invade the land of the plaintiffs. In this suit the officials of the defendants invaded the suit property once and there is every possibility that they may invade the same in future. Thus, the defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except due course of law. Thus, this Issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs". Considering all the above factors, I find no fault in the above assessment to quantify the damage suffered by the plaintiffs. 19. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs deserve no interference. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 08.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in connection with case no. Title Suit 16 of 2012 are affirmed and upheld. However, the parties are to bear their own respective costs. Send down the LCRs immediately.