M K MOORTHY Vs. V A T PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 32 of 2002 dated 31.10.1002 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Chengalpet, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 24 of 1998 dated 27.2.2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cwm-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalu-kundram.

(2.) The averments in the plaint are as follows: (i) The suit property is a gramanatham and it is the ancestral property of plaintiff. The plaintiffs father Kanniappa Chettiar succeeded the suit property and he was in enjoyment of the same. After the death of Kanniappa Chettiar, the plaintiff and his brother Shanmugam were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On mutual agreement, the plaintiffs brother is in enjoyment of a site near light house. The plaintiff is in enjoyment of the suit property. (ii) The plaintiff put up a semi hut in the suit property and is residing there. His possession has been recognised by the Grama natham Survey and Settlement Authority and patta has been issued in Patta No. 764, in the name ofthe plaintiff. Since, he wanted to put up a pucca construction in the suit property, he submitted a plan, which was rejected by the Archeological Department. Hence, the plaintiff was residing in a nearby place and so the place is with dilapidated house. The house is assessed to tax. The house tax has been paid by the plaintiff. (iii) The first defendant is an utter stranger, not even a neighbour. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit properly for nearly 3,0 years. Now, the first defendant attempted to remove the fence in the Northern side of the suit property in the third week of March, 1998, which was prevented by the plaintiff and the elderly people of the Village. Since, the first defendant is an influential person, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit property. Pending the suit, the first defendant died and therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6. Hence, he prayed for the decree.

(3.) The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows: