DISTRICT COLLECTOR PERIYAR DISTRICT ERODE Vs. NALLAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1991 rendered in A.S.No.198 of 1990 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Erode, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1990 rendered in O.S.No.792 of 1985 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Erode.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above second appeal, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.792 of 1985 before the court below for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs absolutely; that one Ramaswami Chettiar, the ancestor of plaintiffs 1 to 5 was granted 5 cents of land on 27.10.1923 by the then District Collector for the purpose of putting up the country Oil Mill called 'Chekku' in that land and for enjoying the same for ever; that land is the southern portion of the suit property; that the grant was made in a pucca deed; that three pattas containing three cents of land each were granted for the same purpose in favour of one Muthusami Chettiar and his two sons Pachiappa Chettiar and Appavu Chettiar separately; that Muthusamy, Pachiappa and Appavu are the ancestors of plaintiffs 6 to 14; that 9 cents of land of these people lie in the north of the suit property; that Pachiappa and Appavu were the sons of Muthusami and that plaintiffs 6 to 14 belong to one family; that the ancestors of the plaintiffs put up the oil mill in the suit land granted to them and enjoyed by them; that they have also put up buildings and are residing there; that thereafter, the plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit property in the similar manner, but on account of a cyclone which hit that area a year back, the plaintiffs' buildings and oil grinders got damaged and became unusable; that taking advantage of this, the enemies of the plaintiffs have instigated the defendant to deprive the plaintiffs of the suit land and to use the same for some other purpose; that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and even if he has, the plaintiffs can be evicted only under due process of law and not otherwise; that on such and other averments, the plaintiffs would pray to decree the suit as prayed for.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant and he would submit in the written statement that an extent of 4.06.0 hectares in S.No.312 located at Mukasi Hanumanpalli village is notified in the revenue records as natham poramboke; that an extent of 0.14 cents has been granted in favour of one Ramasamy in the year 1923 on certain conditions; that as per the said conditions, the property should be used for putting up 'Chekku' with the help of the bullocks and if the property is not made use of for such activity and if the same is used for some other purpose breaching the conditions, the grant would be cancelled; that the plaintiffs are not running the 'Chekku' business for the past 15 years; that in the fasli year 1383, a re-survey was made in the suit property and the entire extent of the suit property was classified as natham poramboke; that a show cause notice was issued on 15.10.1985 to the effect that the suit property was required for the purpose of constructing a building for noon-meal scheme; that therefore, eviction proceedings were taken to evict the plaintiffs; that the suit is not maintainable since notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. was not issued. On such averments, the respondent would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.