SIDDHARAJ Vs. DHARMAPURI MARKETING COMMITTEE DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants in this second appeal. THE first defendant namely Nagarajan died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit.

(2.) THE respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 28 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur for declaration to declare that they are the owners of the suit property, for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction for demolition of the temporary houses illegally put up by the appellants herein and for costs. THE said suit was dismissed. THE appeal filed by the respondent herein in A.S. No. 12 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri was allowed thereby the decree and judgment passed by the trial court was set aside, hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) THE first appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein on the ground that though the appellants have admitted the fact that the temple is the owner of the suit properties, the buildings said to have been put up by them were without obtaining permission from the temple that too without sanctioned plan from the local body that the buildings said to have been constructed in the year 1968 but Dw2 in his evidence stated that the buildings were constructed only in the year 1974, however the property tax receipts only from 1978 were produced. Further, no evidence was produced by the appellants to show that they are not aware whether the buildings were assessed to property tax or not. Moreover, in the written statement, the appellants have mentioned that the buildings were constructed by them in the suit property that the delivery of possession by the temple authorities under Ex.A13 to the respondent is evident that possession was delivered by temple to the respondent, which is a public society that the second defendant was a contractor who, while constructing adjacent building kept the building materials in the suit property and thereafter, he gradually and clandestinely encroached into the suit property and constructed the present super structure that the first defendant was employed in Electricity Board, hence, he managed to obtain electricity service connection to the said superstructure. THE first appellate Court further pointed out that the respondent herein has purchased the suit property for a valid consideration, hence, it is entitled to the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.