KADAYANALLUR TOWN SENAIYAR THALAIVAR SAMUTHAYAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Concurrent Judgments and Decrees passed in Original Suit No. 595 of 1993 by the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and in Appeal Suit No. 21 of 1999 by the Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi are being challenged in the present Second Appeal. The Appellant herein as Plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 595 of 1993 on the file of the Trial Court praying to declare that the Suit property is the absolute property of the Plaintiff and also to restrain the Defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyments of the Plaintiff by means of perpetual injunction, wherein the present Respondents have been shown as Defendants 2 to 7.

(2.) In the Plaint, it is averred that the Suit property is originally belonged to one Kader Mohideen and he purchased the same from one Kanivoimozhi under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1955 and thereafter he sold the Suit property in favour of Muthiah Mooppanar by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972. The said Muthiah Moopanar is the representative of the Plaintiff. The Suit property has been purchased for the benefit of the Plaintiff and in which the Defendants are not having any manner of right, title and interest and since the Defendants have made a false claim over the Suit property by way of disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, the present Suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the Plaint.

(3.) In the Written Statement filed on the side of the Second Defendant, it is averred that the present Suit is barred as per Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. The land in question has been purchased by a Religious Institution by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 21.03.1972. The concerned authorities have taken the land as per provision of Section 20(a) of the Land Reforms Act and therefore the Plaintiff is not having any right, title and interest over the Suit property. The Plaintiff has possessed of excess land. Under the said circumstances, the land in question has been acquired. The representatives of the Plaintiff have appeared for enquiry. Under the said circumstances, they are estopped from disputing the right of the Defendants. The Suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff should have preferred an Appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority and there is no merit in the Suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.