MARIAPPAN Vs. MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree, dated 02.07.2012, passed in A.S.No.100 of 2011, by the learned Sub -Judge, Devakottai, setting aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 07.01.2011, passed in O.S.No. 51 of 2009, by the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

(2.) The appellant herein filed O.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent or his agent interfering with possession and enjoyment of suit properties. According to the appellant, the property in question is a Government poramboke land. His father was in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 60 years. He put up a thatched house and obtained electricity connection. He was paying the electricity charges. The Revenue Officials issued 'B' Memo and the appellant's father was paying the charges. After the death of his father, he is in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. On 15.03.2009, the respondent threatened the appellant to remove the thatched shed and interfered with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, he filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) The respondent denied all the allegations made by the appellant. According to the respondent, the property in question belonged to the community of the respondent and community Temple is situated therein. They were allotted to the community of the respondent by Copper Plate, by Sethupathi Maharaja. The trees in the suit property were planted and maintained by the community people of the respondent. They also stated that the suit is not maintainable, for not impleading the Government and their community people. Patta has been issued in the name of Trustees of respondent's community. The property in question is classified as "Valaiyan Kovil" in the Revenue records. The appellant has not stated as to how he got possession of the suit property after separating the same from Valaiyan Kovil. On 07.06.2009, the appellant tried to cut the trees in the suit property. The respondent gave a complaint to the revenue officials. The appellant stopped cutting the trees and filed the present suit. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.