D.MANICKAM Vs. PRESIDENT PERIYA VEERASANGILI PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The appellant filed the suit on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai i) for a declaration that he his the absolute owner of the suit property, ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to assign new door number to the suit property and receive house tax and other charges from the appellant/plaintiff and his heirs. After trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 25.07.2005. On an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as A.S.No.88/2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, the decree of the trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has approached this court with the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of second appeal.

(2.) The original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff based on the plaint averments, which are in brief, as follows:

(3.) The suit was originally filed against the first respondent/first defendant alone. Since the first defendant took a defence plea that the suit is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties, the appellant/plaintiff impleaded respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 did not actively contest the suit and they remained ex-parte. The first defendant alone contested the suit on the basis of the averments made in the written statement. Apart from the general and specific denial of the plaint allegations, the first respondent/first defendant has made the following averments.