RAMALINGAM Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.1993 in A.S.No.168 of 1990 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Virudhachalam.

(2.) PLAINT Facts:- (a) The PLAINTiff and the Defendants are relations. The suit properties in A and B schedules - landed and other properties at Elumichai Hamlet of U.Mangalam Village in Virudhachalam Taluk belonged to the Appellant/PLAINTiff. (b) The properties described in the PLAINT schedules were the properties of the Appellant/PLAINTiff, which were looked after by the Respondent/1st Defendant with the help of his relations viz., Defendants 2, 3 and 4 at the instance of the Appellant/PLAINTiff out of the funds given by the Appellant. The Appellant/PLAINTiff used to pay Rs.200/- per year in return of service of the Respondent/1st Defendant. The Appellant/PLAINTiff was very prompt in payment every year after harvest or otherwise. (c) The Appellant/PLAINTiff paid his consideration as mentioned supra to the Respondent/1st Defendant in the middle of February 1982 (at the end of Tamil month Thai) and sent him away, as he proved to be unworthy of the confidence reposed on him by the Appellant/ PLAINTiff and nominated one Ponnambalam son of Samidurai Kondiar in his place on same terms. (d) The Respondent/1st Defendant feeling aggrieved of his replacement started giving trouble to the Appellant/PLAINTiff and his nominee by creating situations and conditions not conducive for the Appellant/PLAINTiff or his nominee to cultivate and manage the said landed and other properties without his co-operation and support. The Defendants were threatened that they were going to take possession of the said properties talking full advantage of the absence of the Appellant/PLAINTiff at Elumichai village and bring them under plough when there was rainfall. (e) The Respondent/1st Defendant commands some kind of influence in the Village and also had a large body of hidemen to support him. The Appellant/PLAINTiff apprehended that the Respondent/ 1st Defendant and others would certainly implement their plan by taking possession of landed and other properties at Elumichai village and bring them under plough when there was rainfall causing heavy pecuniary loss to him. (f) The lands were to be prepared for raising some crop or other when there was rainfall. The Appellant/PLAINTiff pursuaded the Respondent/1st Defendant and others to be reasonable, but in vain. Hence, it was necessary for the Appellant to file a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession also. The Defendants 1 to 4 had no right or title to the suit properties. They had no right to deny the Appellant/PLAINTiff's title to the suit properties. (g) Therefore, the Appellant/PLAINTiff had filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession against the Defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and his enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3.) ADDED further, the Appellant/ Plaintiff, in the event of relief of possession being granted, prayed for mesne profits to be determined by means of separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code etc.