A THANGAMANI Vs. PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the licensee of the coconut trees in the suit property and consequential permanent injunction that his possession should not be interfered with is under challenge.

(2.) The short facts which led to the filing of the suit can be stated as follows:

(3.) The suit was vehemently contested by the defendants 2 and 4 on different grounds. The second defendant would state that the land in S.No.111/13 has been classified as Natham; that it is a Oorani and is vested with Manadimangalam Panchayat; that Manadimangalam Panchayat alone has got the control to maintain the Oorani; that the Panchayat has transplanted 104 coconut trees; that the Tahsildar, Nilakottai did not obtain the consent of the Panchayat for the alleged grant of 2C patta dated 19.9.1983; that in the Panchayat resolution dated 30.3.1982, it was resolved that no 2C patta should be granted to the plaintiff, which was communicated to the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar on receipt of the resolution closed the file without issuing any 2C patta to the plaintiff; that the records available in the Panchayat revealed that all the coconut trees in the said survey number were transplanted, grown and maintained by the Panchayat itself; that on 20.1.1984, auction notice was given to the public fixing the date of auction on 9.2.1984; that the third defendant came as the successful bidder for Rs.5550/- for three years; that the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Collector, Madurai, and the entire proceedings were stayed; that as per the order of the District Collector, the Village Administrative Officer is in custody of the coconut trees; that the reference to the suit in O.S.No.205/73 is absolutely fraudulent; that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the coconut trees; that he has no rights to pluck the coconut fruits; that the brother of the plaintiff Samayanan has wantonly acted against the interest of the Panchayat, and action is being taken against him; that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and hence, the suit may be dismissed.