RAMASAMY MOOPANAR Vs. RATHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE plaintiff, who is running an elementary school on the suit property, filed a suit against the defendant for an injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. THE site, on which there is said to be a school building, was classified as Government poramboke or natham land. THE plaintiff claimed that he and his predecessor-in-title had been in occupation for over 70 years. THE defence was that the suit property belonged to the defendant and that under a licence granted by his father, the plaintiff was running the school in the property. THE defendant relied on a partition of 1918, in which this property was dealt with by his family. THE defendant's case was that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.

(2.) THE trial Court took the view that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had established title to the suit property. It, however, granted an injunction, as the plaintiff was in possession. THE learned Subordinate Judge, to whom the respondent appealed, held, on the basis of Exhibits B-3 to B-7, a partition-deed and certain other sale-deeds, in which in the description of boundaries, the present property was referred to as the defendant's property, that the predecessor-in-title of the defendant had dealt with the suit property as their own, though it was natham land. He also held, on the basis of possession, that the suit for an injunction had to be decreed. Hence the present second appeal by the defendant.