SARAVANAN PILLAI Vs. A S MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three second appeals have been preferred from the common judgment made by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge Tiruchi in A.S.Nos.20 of 1986, 105 of 1986 and 21 of 1986, dated 15.7.1989. Those three appeals were preferred from a common judgment made by the learned District Munsif, Manapparai made in O.S.Nos.652 of 1982, 665 of 1982 and 714 of 1982 respectively.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed O.S.No.652 of 1982 seeking for the relief of declaration of his title to the suit property along with permanent injunction with the following averments. THE suit property previously belonged to S.P.G. Mission, which sold the same and other property to one Rangasamy Naidu on 26.3.1941 for a valid consideration. THE said properties were possessed and enjoyed by Rangaswamy Naidu. THE suit property was sold to the mother of the plaintiff by name Gnanammal on 3.10.1957, from which date she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Under a registered family partition deed dated 16.7.1961 the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff and from that time he was maintaining, possessing and enjoying the suit property. THE suit property was used as front vassal at the northern side of the plaintiff's house. He put cow shed there and tied his cows. He also planted vegetable yielding plants there. He was doing electric motor pumpset business in the name of RMS Corporation. From Ramalingam Pillai Street, one has to enter the plaintiff's house through the suit property. His house has no other entrance. He was having right over the suit property by adverse possession also. THE defendants had no right over the suit property. THE second defendant sought for plaintiff's permission to install a small bunk shop in the suit property, which was refused by him. D-2 purchased motor pumpset from the plaintiff, for which certain amount was due, and hence misunderstandings developed. D-2 with the help of D-1, D-3 to D-5 were trying to interfere with the possession of the suit property. THE plaintiff intended to put up a compound wall around the suit property. He has also obtained planning permission from Manapparai Municipality for such construction on 21.4.1982. Inspite of the same, the defendants were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence there arose a necessity to file a suit for the abovestated reliefs.

(3.) THE first defendant was set ex parte. THE second defendant in his written statement apart from the averments in O.S. No.652 of 1982, has alleged that the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of the said S.P.G. Mission even before 1900; that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property; that the second defendant only had got right over the same and hence the suit might be dismissed. THE second defendant had also filed an additional written statement alleging that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get mandatory injunction, as alleged by them in the amended plaint and the suit was liable to be dismissed.