N RAMAMIRTHAM Vs. SENBHAGAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.75/2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvarur reversing Judgment of the trial Court and thereby dismissing Plaintiff's suit for Permanent Injunction and also Mandatory Injunction.

(2.) Suit property relates to 10 cents of lands in S.No.95/4B of Pozhagudi village, Nannilam Taluk. Case of Plaintiff is that Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with one Subramania Bakthar and his wife Kamaladevi in the year 1992 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 1992. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed [23.02.1998] from the said Subramania Bakthar and his wife Kamaladevi Patta for the suit property was transferred in the name of Plaintiff under Ex.A2-Proceedings of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nannilam. Defendant owns land in S.No.95/3 on the western side of the suit property. Further case of Plaintiff is that there had been enmity between Plaintiff and Defendant and on 03.12.2000, Defendant with an intention to encroach the suit property, cut four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree and carried them away. Plaintiff gave Ex.A3 complaint to Peralam Police Station on 03.12.2000 and the same was acknowledged by Peralam Police under Ex.A3-acknowledgement. Since Defendant's daughter was then Superintendent of Police in Cuddalore District, Peralam Police did not act upon the complaint given by Plaintiff. Stating that Defendant has no right in the suit S.No.95/4B, Plaintiff had filed suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way encroaching or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for Mandatory Injunction for recovery of four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree.

(3.) Resisting the suit, Defendant filed Written Statement contending that Defendant is entitled to S.No.95/3 which is on the western side of suit S.No.95/4B. According to Defendant, four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree cut and removed were only in S.No.95/3 which belongs to the Defendant and that Plaintiff cannot question the act of Defendant in removing Teak wood trees and Siva Siva tree.