JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree, dated 24-7-2002, in O.S.No.142 of 1996, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendants in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs.1,42,120/- towards damages for removing coconut trees with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the defendants. 4. In a nutshell, the averments in the plaint are as follows: (a) The plaintiffs are residents of Muramanda village and they are having their own lands in that village in various Survey numbers and are cultivating the same in their own right and title. While so, under the supervision of 1st defendant, defendants 2 and 3 digged the drain by name ‘Nalluri Drain’ through the plaintiffs’ land at Muramanda village and at the time of digging the drain, the defendants with the support of their office staff removed the plaintiffs’ coconut trees totally which are in good and healthy yielding condition and aged about 12 years. After removing the said coconut trees by the defendants, the 2nd defendant awarded compensation towards damages for removing coconut trees at Rs.7,650/-, Rs.7,650/-, Rs.37,400/- Rs.6,800/- and Rs.21,250/- to each of the plaintiffs respectively and the said compensation is calculated as per G.O.Ms.No.601 Revenue (LA) Department, dated 19-6-1992 and the compensation has sanctioned by the 2nd defendant on 17-5-1993. (b) The 3rd defendant has also issued a certificate dated 18-02-1993 to the plaintiffs stating as to how many coconut trees were removed, age of the removed trees and other particulars. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendants did not pay the said compensation to the plaintiffs. After the plaintiffs got issued notices under Section 80 of CPC on 14-5-1996 demanding the defendants to pay the said compensation amount which were received by the defendants, but failed to give any reply nor made any payments. The 2nd plaintiff died on 09-01-1996 during the pendency of the suit and legal representatives of deceased 2nd plaintiff are impleaded as plaintiffs 6 to 9 and a joint decree is accordingly prayed for in their favour. Hence, the suit. 5. The 2nd plaintiff died on 09-01-1996 during the pendency of the suit and legal representatives of deceased 2nd plaintiff are impleaded as plaintiffs 6 to 9 and a joint decree is accordingly prayed for in their favour. Hence, the suit. 5. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, which is adopted by defendants 1 and 3, are as follows: The Central Emergency Relief Project (CERP) has taken up the work for improvement of Nalluru Drain during the year 1992-93 and it passes through Muramanda village of Kadiyam Mandal and the lands of plaintiffs are situated in that village. During the execution of work for improvement of said drain, lands of the adjacent ryots i.e. the plaintiffs’ lands were occupied, as such coconut trees of the ryots have fallen within the drain margin. The 1st defendant has called proposals for payment of compensation through CERP for the trees lost during the execution of the work and accordingly proposals were submitted to the 1st defendant for payment of compensation for the trees lost. The compensation is calculated according to G.O.Ms.No.601, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 19-5-1992. Compensation lists were published in the notice boards of the office of 3rd defendant, village chavidi and panchayat office as per the instructions of the 1st defendant on 17-5-1993. The payment of compensation to the trees lost during the execution of work for improvement of the drains is still pending with the CERP. Therefore, the CERP sub-division, Dowlaiswaram, is proper and necessary party to the suit and these defendants have nothing to do with the suit. This defendant has assessed the value of the compensation with regard to the said G.O. and published as per direction of the 1st defendant with an intention that any objection may raise regarding the fixation of value of the trees. The 3rd defendant has issued a certificate to the effect that the number of trees and the age of trees removed after conducting joint inspection with the Deputy Executive Engineer, CERP, Dowlaiswaram, when the plaintiffs have applied for issue of certificate. The CERP Sub-Division, Dowlaiswaram, who executed the work for improvement of Nalluru drain has to make payment of compensation after obtaining specific orders from their higher authorities of the Government. Therefore, the payment of compensation by the defendants does not arise. The CERP Sub-Division, Dowlaiswaram, who executed the work for improvement of Nalluru drain has to make payment of compensation after obtaining specific orders from their higher authorities of the Government. Therefore, the payment of compensation by the defendants does not arise. The suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary party who is CERP Sub-Division, Dowlaiswaram. There is no usage or custom and practice in payment of interest and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any interest much less 24% per annum. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is invented for the purpose of the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount by way of compensation as prayed for ? and (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 1 and 5 are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer in the office of 3rd defendant is examined as D.W.1. On behalf of the defendants, no documents are marked. 8. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for an amount of Rs.1,42,120/- against the defendants with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 10. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals on behalf of the appellants and Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. 11. I have carefully perused the pleadings, evidence, judgment of the trial Court and the grounds of appeal with utmost circumspection. 12. Learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that CERP, Irrigation Department, is proper party to pay compensation to the plaintiffs but not the Revenue Department and the appellants/defendants are no way concerned to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs. He would further contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. 13. 12. Learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that CERP, Irrigation Department, is proper party to pay compensation to the plaintiffs but not the Revenue Department and the appellants/defendants are no way concerned to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs. He would further contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs would contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court and the appeal may be dismissed. 14. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, findings recorded by the trial Court, in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit ? and (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? 15. Point No.1:- Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit ? The case of the plaintiffs is that they are residents of Muramanda village and they are having their own lands in that village in various Survey numbers and cultivating the same in their own right and title. The plaintiffs further pleaded that under the supervision of 1st defendant, defendants 2 and 3 digged the drain by name ‘Nalluri Drain’ through the plaintiffs’ lands at Muramanda village and at the time of digging the drain, the defendants with the support of their office staff removed the plaintiffs’ coconut trees totally which are in good and healthy yielding condition and aged about 12 years. They further pleaded that after removing the said coconut trees by the defendants, the Assistant Collector (Sub-Collector), East Godavari District at Rajahmundry i.e. the 2nd defendant in the suit estimated damages for an amount of Rs.7,650/- to the 1st plaintiff, Rs.37,400/- to the 2nd plaintiff, Rs.7,650/- to the 3rd plaintiff, Rs.6,800/- to the 4th plaintiff and Rs.21,250/- to the 5th plaintiff each towards compensation for removing the coconut trees and the said compensation is calculated as per G.O.Ms.No.601 Revenue (LA) Department, dated 19-6-1992 and proceedings are also issued by the 2nd defendant dated 17-5-1993. They further pleaded that no amount is released by the defendants till so far. 16. They further pleaded that no amount is released by the defendants till so far. 16. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-7. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he is the 1st plaintiff and the Government had formed a drain by name ‘Nalluri Drain’ in the year 1993 running through their lands. By the time of digging of the drain, some extent of land and also coconut trees which are fruit bearing trees, aged about 15 years, were removed by the defendants. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the Sub Collector, Rajahmundry and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam Mandal/defendants 2 and 3 had supervised the formation of drain and estimated the damage caused to their lands. The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry/2nd defendant issued Ex.A-1 copy of proforma-II in which names of the plaintiffs along with some other ryots are also clearly shown and further the estimated loss of each plaintiff is also there in Ex.A-1 and the 2nd defendant proposed to pay compensation to the plaintiffs and issued proceedings which was published in a notice board. The plaintiffs also relied on Ex.A-2 certificate issued by the 3rd defendant/Mandal Revenue Officer of Kadiyam Mandal and Ex.A-3 is the certificate issued by the 3rd defendant regarding the trees removed in the land of the 4th plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that they have issued notices under Section 80 of CPC to the defendants and the same were received by the defendants under Exs.A-5 to A-7 acknowledgements and even after receipt of the said notices, no legal notice was given by the defendants and no compensation was paid by the defendants and that the plaintiffs are constrained to approach the Civil Court. In cross-examination when elicited, he admits that the defendants did not pass any order or award except the issuance of proceedings under Ex.A-1 with regard to the compensation payable to them and the coconut trees removed by the defendants were existing on the bund between their yield and original drain. In cross-examination, nothing was elicited from P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. 17. The 5th plaintiff in the suit is examined as P.W.2 before the trial Court. As per his evidence, he raises coconut garden or plantain garden in his land. In cross-examination, nothing was elicited from P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. 17. The 5th plaintiff in the suit is examined as P.W.2 before the trial Court. As per his evidence, he raises coconut garden or plantain garden in his land. A drain by name ‘Nalluri Drain’ was formed running through his land and the District Collector and the Sub Collector had visited formation of the said drain. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam, was always supervising the formation of that drain and he lost 20 coconut trees in the land of Ac.0-53 cents comprising in Survey No.328/2 and he lost 5 coconut trees in the land of Ac.1-37 cents comprising in Survey No.328/4 during formation of the drain and the Sub Collector estimated the damage and issued Ex.A-1. In cross- examination when elicited, he admits that coconut trees existing in the land covered by the bund were lost by them. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 totally supports the case of the plaintiffs. Their evidence is consistent and cogent and undoubtedly supports the case of the plaintiffs. As stated supra, in cross-examination, nothing was elicited from P.Ws.1 and 2 to discredit the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs are having enmity with the defendants. 19. In order to prove the defence, the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam, is examined as D.W.1. As per his evidence, he is now working in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam Mandal and he gave evidence on the basis of the Revenue records and Ex.A-1 was only an assessment of the value of the trees that were affected by the repair works. In cross-examination when elicited, he admits that he is working as Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam Mandal, for two years and he has gone through the record pertaining to the disputes of the present case. He further admits that the State Government is represented by the District Collector, East Godavari District and the Sub Collector, Rajahmundry, got an estimate under Ex.A-1 containing particulars of the trees affected and compensation payable and all the plaintiffs 1 to 5 were named in Ex.A-1 as the persons entitled to compensation and Ex.A-3 was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam Mandal. Another crucial admission made by D.W.1 is that repair works to Nalluri Drain were jointly executed by CERP and Revenue Department and the CERP Division transfers funds to the Sub Collector for payment of compensation relating to CERP works. He further admits that the District Collector, East Godavari District, had referred the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sub Collector, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram, Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Kakinada, Joint Collector of Agriculture, Kakinada and also to the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada. He further admits that entire works were carried out under supervision of the District Collector. 20. The District Collector is the 1st defendant herein. Ex.A-1 is the estimation given by the 2nd defendant/Sub Collector, Rajahmundry, by assessing the damage caused to the plaintiffs for removal of the trees in their land. The own admissions of D.W.1 clearly goes to show that entire works to Nalluri Drain were jointly executed by CERP Division and Revenue Department, the CERP Division transfer funds to the Sub Collector/2nd defendant for payment of compensation relating to the CERP works and the entire works were carried out under the supervision of 3rd defendant. As per the contents in Ex.A-1, which is supported by D.W.1, the defendants have to pay the compensation of Rs.7,650/- to the 1st plaintiff, Rs.37,400/- to the 2nd plaintiff, Rs.7,650/- to the 3rd plaintiff, Rs.6,800/- to the 4th plaintiff and Rs.21,250/- to the 5th plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiffs 6 to 9 are added as legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiffs 6 to 9 are entitled to the compensation of deceased 2nd plaintiff. As stated supra, the own admissions of D.W.1 negatives the case of the defendants that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. 21. Learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that CERP, Irrigation Department, is a proper and necessary party and CERP, Irrigation Department, has to pay the compensation. As per the own admissions of D.W.1/Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, the entire works were done under the supervision of 1st defendant and the CERP Division will transfer funds to the 2nd defendant. It is settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence because the party himself admits it being true. It may reasonably presume to be so, until the presumption is rebutted. It is settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence because the party himself admits it being true. It may reasonably presume to be so, until the presumption is rebutted. The fact admitted must be taken to be established. The effect of admissions is merely to shift the onus to disproving on the party making them unless a plea of estoppel can be successfully invoked. 22. It is noteworthy to note that, there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of oral evidence of witness. The credibility of witness is paramount consideration for the Court. The Court has to consider various parameters so as to appreciate the oral evidence on the point by testing the same on the touch-stone of two important yardsticks viz., probabilities and surrounding circumstances among various other parameters. It is well settled proposition of law that admitted facts need not be proved and that admission of a party is best piece of evidence to decide the issue. The unequivocal admission of D.W.1 is ipse dixit. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for appeals that CERP, Irrigation Department, alone is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs and the defendants are not liable to pay the same. 23. The plaintiffs claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 17-5-1993 i.e. on which date Ex.A-1 composition proposal to all the plaintiffs was issued by 2nd defendant. Admittedly, there is no contract in between the plaintiffs and defendants with regard to the payments by the defendants. The defendants have taken a specific plea in the written statement that the interest payable to the plaintiffs is usurious and there is no privity of contract in between the plaintiffs and defendants to pay interest at 24% per annum. The trial Court has not given specific finding about the interest of 24% per annum from the date of issuance of Ex.A-1 till the date of filing of the suit. The defendants are Government Departments. In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Court can take judicial notice, inflation and fall in the bank lending rate of interest. If the interest is unconscionable and usurious, the Court has power to interfere with the same. As stated supra, the defendants are not individuals and the defendants are Government Departments. The defendants are Government Departments. In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Court can take judicial notice, inflation and fall in the bank lending rate of interest. If the interest is unconscionable and usurious, the Court has power to interfere with the same. As stated supra, the defendants are not individuals and the defendants are Government Departments. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff is entitled to Rs.7,650/- (Rupees seven thousand, six hundred and fifty only), plaintiffs 6 to 9 are entitled to Rs.37,400/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and four hundred only), 3rd plaintiff is entitled to Rs.7,650/-(Rupees seven thousand, six hundred and fifty only), 4th plaintiff is entitled to Rs.6,800/- (Rupees six thousand and eight hundred only) and 5th plaintiff is entitled to Rs.21,250/- (Rupees twenty one thousand, two hundred and fifty only) altogether Rs.80,750/- (Rupees eighty thousand, seven hundred and fifty only) along with interest of 6% per annum from 17-5-1993 till the date of realization. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 24. Point No.2:- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decree, dated 24-7-2002, in O.S.No.142 of 1996, passed by the trial Court as that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.80,750/-(Rupees eighty thousand, seven hundred and fifty only) instead of Rs.1,42,120/- and they are also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.80,750/- from 17-5-1993 till the date of realization. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.