P SUBRAMANIAM Vs. THAMBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.07.1998 in A.S.No.68 of 1997 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, in modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.1996 in O.S.No.171 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.68 of 1997, dated 01.07.1998, has inter alia observed that 'since the earlier Commissioner is not coming to the Court, a new Commissioner has been appointed and as per Ex.C.4, Commissioner's Plan from the Road to proceed to the land of the Appellant/Plaintiff, there is a 18 feet breadth way in between L.B.P. Canal and the temple and further, the said place is convenient for transport where the vehicles can ply easily and apart from the constructions seen in Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4, no further change in construction is to be made and presently, it has come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to grant the relief of permanent injunction and consequently, allowed the Appeal with costs, thereby, setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court with costs of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Further, the First Appellate Court has also opined that in respect of the relief prayed for by the Appellant/Plaintiff in the suit that the Respondents/Defendants have no manner of right to put up the temple then, proper persons can be added and relief sought for, if so advised.

(3.) THE trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a clear and categorical conclusion that in Perundurai Taluk, Kanjikoil Village in R.S.No.169 viz., on the Northern side of the land of the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Respondents/Defendants or his men or agents and other persons should not put up any construction and accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction, without costs.