P V CHINNIAH GOUNDER Vs. P PONNUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the courts below has come up by way of this second appeal. The short facts are as follows: He has filed O. S. 836 of 1970 before the court of the District Munsif, Kulitalai, for a declaration that he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and also for an injunction. According to him, the suit property is a road poromboke comprised in S. F. 583 situate in Manapparai Town. This was shown as A. B. C. D. in the plaint plan. The plaintiff encroached upon this suit item in about 1949 or 1950 and was running a tea shop. By issue of memos, his right to remain in possession has been recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The portion marked as A. E. F. G. , situated on the north of the suit item was a private property of the first defendant, the second defendant being the power of attorney agent of the first defendant. The portion shown as E. B. H. F. is situated north of the suit item and east of A. E. F. G. This portion is a road poromboke. The first defendant was in possession of this portion E. B. H. F. Since the plaintiff wanted additional accommodation, he took the property situated on the north of the suit item for lease from the first defendant. The defendants instituted eviction proceedings in respect of the portion leased to the plaintiff shown as a. B. H. G. Eviction was ordered which was sustained even in appeal. The plaintiff was granted time till 10-8-1970. Under the cover of those proceedings, the plaintiff was sought to be evicted. The property which was leased out in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants being originally poromboke belonging to the government, by reason of the assignment in favour of the Municipality, the municipality had become the owner. The said Municipality had given permission by its order dated 12-6-1969 and 20-7-1970 to the plaintiff to occupy the suit item. Hence, the rights of the plaintiff had been protected and, therefore, he instituted the suit.

(2.) IN defence it was contended that the entire property including the suit item was enjoyed by the 1st defendant who encroached upon the property notwithstanding the same being Government poromboke. So long as the plaintiff was inducted into possession by means of a tenancy agreement from the defendants, it was not open to him to deny their title.

(3.) THE defence was accepted. Hence the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal in A. S. 652 of 1972, the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the trial court. Hence the present second appeal.