AYYANAR RAJA Vs. PERIYA THALAIMALAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17-3-1993 made in A.S. No. 62 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Srivilliputhur, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1991 made in O.S. No. 183 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munslf, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in O.S. No. 183 of 1988, it comes to be known that the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for bare injunction. The suit I schedule property, which belonged to the defendants was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Harijan Welfare and allotted to the landless persons by an award No. 11 of 1965 dated 8-10-1965; that the amount for the land was also deposited in the Court; that the II schedule property is a part of the I schedule property; that the Tahsildar has granted patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the II schedule property on 29-12-1965; that on that day onwards he is the owner of that property; that in the meantime, the plaintiff has proposed to construct a house in the land, the defendants had filed a suit in O.S. No. 212 of 1979 on 7-4-1979 and obtained an order of interim stay; that in that petition the defendants have not mentioned the acquisition made by the Government; that thereafter the suit was settled out of Court; but the plaintiff did not know about the result of the case; that again during 1982 the plaintiff has proposed to construct a house in the land, the defendants have obstructed the plaintiff to construct a house. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) The second defendant has filed the written statement and the first defendant has adopted the same and raised the contentions that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and has to be dismissed in limine; that the plaint schedule property was acquired from several Individual persons by the Government for the purpose of Harijan welfare, which was not known by the first defendant; that the plaint property was purchased by their father and till date the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property; that the defendants did not know that the second schedule property is a portion of the first schedule property and the Government has acquired the property; that the Government did not issue notice to the defendants about the acquisition; that the plaintiff is not entitled to the property at any point of time; that the plaintiff did not mention the area and portion of the property in the suit; that the plaintiff has not impleaded the Government as a party in the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this suit.