G BALARAMA NAIDU Vs. BALARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents/plaintiffs' are the villagers, who have filed the suit in a representative capacity for declaration that they are enjoying the Eri and grazing ground in suit Survey Number free from obstruction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from obstructing the battai and from raising cultivation in any portion of the suit Survey number.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs' case is that the suit land is a Peria Eri and Chitheri of Kachadimangalam Village in S.No.59. The major portion of the said land is waterspread and substantial portion in that survey number is used as a grazing land for the cattle owned by the pattadars of the said village. There is a battai leading from the gramanatham to the south of the waterspread in S.No.59 to the burial ground in S.No.59 and there is a customary way for the villagers to the burial ground and it has been in use from time immemorial. They are in possession and enjoyment of the grazing ground and the battai, and the defendant/appellant has been attempting to obstruct the battai and raise cultivation in the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant/appellant in his written statement has admitted that he has encroached upon an extent of 1 acre of grazing land poramboke bearing S.No.59/2 in Kachadimangalam village, which is a grazing ground. According to him, he had reclaimed the suit land and has been cultivating. It is also stated that the State of Tamil Nadu has no objection for its encroachment in S.No.59/2 as he is a small farmer and poor agriculturist. He also stated that the villagers have no objection for his encroachment. It is also stated that there is no battai through the said land leading from the village to the burial ground. The defendant also submitted that if there is no water in the lake, the villagers used to carry the dead body by crossing over the lake as it is a short cut route and there is no regular pathway. On the other hand, the defendant has formed a pathway on his encroached portion for taking his cart for agricultural purposes. It is stated that the 2nd plaintiff has also encroached an extent of 1 acre in the suit grazing ground poramboke and therefore, he cannot make any complaint against the defendant. As the defendant is in possession of the government land, the suit is bad for non-joinder of The State of Tamil Nadu, as necessary party.