SETTU Vs. RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order made in I. A. No. 409 of 2001 in O. S. No. 344 of 2000 dated 7-12-2001 on the file of District Munsif, Mannargudi, dismissing the application filed under Or. 26 R. 9 C. P. C. and declining to appoint the Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) THE brief facts necessitated for disposal of this revision petition could briefly be stated thus:-The suit property relates to S. N. 2351/4 2333 sq. ft. with the house thereon bearing Door No. 30. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his mother by a sale deed dated 27-8-1949. The Plaintiff had purchased the same from his mother Sokkammal under a sale deed dated 27-9-1989. Since then, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Patta is also granted in the name of the Plaintiff for the suit S. No. 2351/4. The Plaintiff has put up a house and he is paying the house tax. Earlier, one Rajamanickam and Mani attempted to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed O. S. No. 248 of 1990 and the same has been decreed in favour of the Plaintiff on 21-01-1999. The Defendants have no manner of right or interest in the suit property; but they have claimed the pathway in the suit property, which the Plaintiff has refused. Aggrieved over the same, the Defendants have attempted to trespass into the suit property, which was prevented by the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) DENYING the averments in the plaint, the Defendants have filed the written statement admitting that the suit S. No. 2351/4b belongs to the Plaintiff. According to the Defendants in S. No. 2349 Arunthathiar Colony is situated. On the Southern side of the suit property there is a pathway leading to S. No. 2349. The Plaintiff had encroached about 1 feet on the Southern side and had put up construction in the encroached portion. The act of the Plaintiff could not be prevented by the Village public. On inspecting the suit property the Revenue Officials and the Municipal Commissioner had directed the Plaintiff to remove the encroachment. But the Plaintiff has not complied with the direction. With a view to give trouble to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had filed the vexatious suit.