LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-167

ARCHUNA GANESAN Vs. G.DESIGA VINAYAGAM

Decided On July 26, 2016
Archuna Ganesan Appellant
V/S
G.Desiga Vinayagam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/first defendant who lost the legal battle in the first Appellate Court has come forward with the Second Appeal, challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.93 of 2006, dated 30.10.2008 by the First Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, by reversing the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.497 of 2002, dated 11.09.2006 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

(2.) The first respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agent from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thereby restraining from demolishing the plaintiff's "A-B" portion of his southern wall and committed illegal trespass into the plaint schedule property stating that the suit property and other properties are originally belonged to one Kottar Chettoor Nainar Desiga Vinayagar Devasthanam Trust (hereinafter referred as Trust) and the plaintiff took the property for ground rent and the plaintiff constructed a building in that and he is a tenant for the past 60 years by paying rent. In the year 1998-1999, the plaintiff demolished the old superstructure in the plaint schedule property and put up a new one and paid the municipal tax in his name.

(3.) The plaintiff schedule property face on the northern side towards Chetty street, Kottar. One house belongs to Shunmugam lies on the east of the plaintiff's property. On the west, the property of one Ayyamperumal and on the south, a vacant site belongs to Chettoor Desiga Vinayagar Trust lies. Except on the northern side, all the three boundaries of the plaintiff having buildings. The first defendant who is a stranger to that place, purchased some area on the souther side of Ayyamperumal's property about three months back. In order to carry out the building materials to his property, he attempted to demolish "A-B" portion of the plaintiff's southern wall, in which he has no right to demolish. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.