ANTHONIAMMAL DECEASAED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 28.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.6 of 1997, whereby the decree and judgment passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 16.10.1996 in O.S.No.946 of 1993, were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE deceased 1st appellant was the sole plaintiff and appellants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial court. THE plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the following averments: THE suit property is a house and its appurtenance situated in Arockiyanatham Colony in Mayiladuthurai and the ground site of the suit property is classified as a Government Poramboke. THE husband of the plaintiff (deceased 1st appellant) was a retired Police Constable. Some thirty years prior to the filing of the suit, several people occupied the Government poramboke land and constructed houses and similarly, the husband of the plaintiff also occupied the place and constructed his house in 1962 and for this, the Government officials have not objected to the same. THE Mayiladuthurai Municipality has also made assessment and collected the house tax. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit property along with her family members and assessment was also changed in her name. In the said situation, Nalivutror Mempattu Sangam has also constructed modern toilet in her house with a view to benefits the poor people. Defendants 4 to 6 in order to grab the property of the plaintiff, approached the 3rd defendant, the Revenue Inspector of that area and induced him to evict the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant threatened the plaintiff that since the Government had initiated proceedings, she should vacate the premises immediately. In September 1993, defendants 3 to 6 attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property and hence the suit.

(3.) ON the said pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues and on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining one Thomas as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and on the side of the defendants, the 4th defendant examined himself as D.W.1 besides examining D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8 and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had decreed the suit. Challenging the said finding, defendants 4 to 6 filed A.S.No.6 of 1997 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, wherein the decree and judgment of the trial court were set aside and the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal. Pendency of the second appeal, the sole appellant died and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4.