both oral and documentary would no doubt show the plaintiff was a Railway contractor for collection of the coal ash for the period 1984-85; 1985-86 and 1986-87 for G-Section. Ex.A4—Experience Certificate issued by the Divisional Engineer, SCR, Vijayawada would manifest that plaintiff executed contract work of removal of purchased coal ash in G-Section for the year 1985-86; 1986-87 (Extended upto 07.06.1987). Thus, by the date of suit, the plaintiff was not undertaking Railway contract works of removal and purchase of coal ash. On the other hand, Ex.B3—letter and permit issued by Divisional Manager, SCR, Vijayawada would show that the Railway contract work of removal of coal ash was entrusted to D4 from 08.06.1987 to 31.03.1988. In that view of the matter, plaintiff’s storing the coal ash in the plaint schedule site as on the date of suit seems highly improbable. No doubt, learned counsel for appellant argued since he was the contractor for previous years, the coal ash collected by him during that period was stored in the suit schedule site which was lying by the date of suit and therefore, the said coal ash belonged to him. It must be said, it is only a fertile imagination because it is highly unbelievable that coal ash could remain in tact in open air for years together. Even PW3, who is said to have worked under plaintiff and doing grading of coal and storing it in the plaintiff’s site, did not specifically state during which period he stored the coal ash in the plaint schedule site. Further, there is no documentary proof that he worked under the plaintiff. So, at any rate, there is no reliable material to hold that the plaintiff stored the coal ash in the plaint schedule site during the relevant period of the suit. On the other hand, since D4 was given contract work
