D. CHANDRAKASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of the Courts below filed against the State seeking permanent injunction based on the possession.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property in possession of his family for generations therefore the 1 st defendant/ the Collector of Trichy and the 2nd defendant/Tahsildar of Ariyalur should not interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) The Tahsildar attached to Ariyalur Taluk has filed written statement, in which, it has been specifically stated that the suit property belongs to the State and the plaintiff is a trespasser. Before filing the suit, the statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC., was not issued. To grab the Government property, the plaintiff has obstructed the suit portion by laying fence and claiming as if he has been in possession and enjoyment for several years. The other contention alleging motive against the ruling party members denied as invented just to grab the Government land.