LAWS(MAD)-2002-6-2

KRISHNAMURTHY GOUNDER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On June 28, 2002
KRISHNAMURTHY GOUNDER Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE SOUTH ARCOT DISTRICT AND TWO OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is unsuccessful before the two Courts below filed the above Second Appeal against the judgment and Decree dated 31.10.1990 made in A.S.No. 30 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989 made in O.S.No.827 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif.

(2.) THE case of the appellant as plaintiff is that the suit property is a village natham property at Kothawalcherry Village, Cuddalore Taluk. THE property has been purchased by the brother of the appellant one Jothiprakash by means of registered sale deed dated 13.7.1980 from one Ramasamy Iyer. Subsequently, there was a partition dated 29.8.1983 between the plaintiff and his brother Jothiprakash and in that partition the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff . From the date of purchase, the plaintiff and his brother were in possession and enjoyment of the property in their own right. Even the vendors of the property under sale deed dated 13.7.1980 were in possession and enjoyment in their own right by putting up a house in the property. While that being so, the Tahsildar, Cuddalore issued a notice under the Land Encroachment Act for eviction of the appellant from the suit property. It is the case of the appellant that no proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act has been taken against the appellant since they are not encroacher and they are in possession of the property for several years. With these averments, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the notice issued, which has been marked under Ex.A2 dated 31.8.1987 under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act is invalid and for permanent injunction.

(3.) THOUGH notice has been served and appearance has been entered through the Government Pleader for the respondent No.l, the District Collector, South Arcot , there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent. THOUGH the second and third respondents were duly served, either they have not chosen to appear in person or engage a counsel.