AMMANI Vs. TIRUCHENGODE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff, who has lost before both the courts below is the appellant. The appellant filed the suit O.S. No. 550 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode for permanent injunction against the respondent herein, which was dismissed on 23-08-2002. The appellant has filed first appeal A.S. No. 361 of 2002 which was also dismissed on 18-02-2003, hence this second appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that she purchased the suit property namely house site under Ex.A2, sale deed dated 17-01-1994 and obtained Patta in her name from the revenue authorities. The sale deed was executed by power of attorney of one Paramasivam. Later, she has mortgaged the suit property with District Centre, Namakkal. The respondent/Municipality attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant under the pretext that the said Paramasivam executed a settlement deed under Ex.A4 dated 05-10-1994 settling the suit property in favour of the respondent. It is canvassed by the appellant that the settlement deed was executed long after the sale deed was executed in her favour.

(3.) The contention of the respondent is that the said Paramasivam was owner of large extent of land comprised in Survey No. 167/1 and 179/3. The said Paramasivam applied for layout sanction with the Town and Country Planning authorities, Salem. In the said plan, Plot Nos. 20 and 21, which is the suit property were set apart for public purpose. The said plan was approved after following the rules and regulations in L.P./R (S.C) No. 26/82 in Na.Ka. No.1391.82 L.3 dated 27-05-198 2. The said plan was altered by the said Paramasivam and a new plan has been approved in L.P./R (S.C) No. 48/82. In the said L.P./R (S. C.No. 48/82, the said two plots have been reserved for public purposes. As mentioned above, plot No.21 is the suit property. After approval of the layout, it is not open to the said Paramasivam to alienate either Plot No.20 or Plot No.21 since it was set apart for children play space. In virtue of the said sanctioned plan, the said two places were placed at the disposal of the respondent for the said public purposes. When the vendor namely Paramasivam has lost his right in the suit property, it is not open to the power of attorney agent namely Sakthivel to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant herein.