PALANI-KUNNAKUDI SAMUDRAPATTI ANNADHANA MADAM Vs. S VENKATARAMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff who lost the battle in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 04. 09. 1995 made in A. S. No. 44 of 1994, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 28. 09. 1993 passed in O. S. No. 872 of 1991.

(2.) THE original suit was filed on behalf of the appellant trust by its trustee describing the appellant trust as a private trust. It was contended therein that an extent of 1. 42 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 136/2 in samudrapatti Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District belonged to the plaintiff trust; that out of the above said extent of 1. 42 acres, a vacant site measuring an extent of 14 cents, the subject matter of the suit was allowed to be occupied by the respondent/defendant for putting up his residence; that the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent/defendant was only permissive and terminable at the will of the appellant/plaintiff; that taking advantage of his position, as the Village Administrative Officer, the respondent/defendant managed to get patta for the suit property in his name with the help of the revenue officials and that in view of the same, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice dated 01. 03. 1989, revoking the licence (permission) and demanding removal of the constructions and delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the respondent/defendant chose to give a reply claiming title in himself in respect of the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff approached the trial Court by way of the suit in o. S. No. 872 of 1991 for the relief of declaration of title, a mandatory injunction for the removal of the superstructures and for recovery of possession after removal of the superstructure. The appellant/plaintiff had also incorporated a prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 100/- as past damages for use and occupation.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing a written statement containing the following allegations: