SHANMUGHAVELU Vs. SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree rendered by the Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 246 of 1992 in and by which the Additional Sub Judge has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in O. S. No. 982 of 1989 and decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants in the said suit viz. , Shanmughavelu and his wife Ezhaikodi have filed this second appeal.

(2.) THE question of law raised in the second appeal on behalf of the appellants/defendants is to the effect that whether the Additional Sub Judge is correct in holding that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the strength of the additional evidence viz. , documents produced and marked as Exs. A6 to A8 (B memos for faslis 1390 and 1391 and letter of reply by the Tahsildar in the year 1993) in I. A. No. 247 of 1993 in A. S. No. 246 of 1992 when actually, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment on the date of filing of the suit.

(3.) THE plaint allegations in brief are as follows. The suit property viz. , one acre covered by S. No. 72/3 and 73/3 with specific boundaries described in the plaint schedule at Sandrorpalayam village belongs to the Government as "malai poramboke". The same is in enjoyment of the plaintiff for the past so many years and he is enjoying the same by cultivating manavari dry crops like groundnut, millets and bajra. His enjoyment has been recognised by the Government and B memos also were issued. However, for the past three years before filing the suit, B memos were not issued in the name of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff also issued notice to Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer, Cuddalore for issue of B memo recognising his enjoyment. But, the Village Administrative Officer obtained all the original records showing the payment of penal charges from the plaintiff by saying that he would forward the papers with his recommendation to the Government for assignment in favour of the plaintiff. While so, the defendants, who are owning the land on the western side of the suit property, are trying to get B memos issued in their names with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and thereby attempting to disturb the plaintiff's possession from 22. 12. 1989. Therefore, the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff upon the suit property other than the true owner viz. , the Government. That is why the plaintiff happened to file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.