M SUBRAMANIAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 182 of 1994 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: the plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Chinnavedampatti. They belonged to Adi Dravida Community and the plaintiffs are the leaders and well-wishers of the said Adi Dravida Community. The suit has been filed in the representative capacity of the said community. The plaintiffs are having the temple called "ramar Koil" which belonged to Adi Dravida Community exclusively. The said temple is being maintained and worshipped by Adi Dravida Community from time immemorial. Even as early as 6. 7. 1961 itself, the electricity connection in S. C. No. III of Chinnavedampatti was given to the suit temple. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they are managing the Ramar Temple situate in the suit property. Adjacent to this temple, there is vacant site about 12 cents. The said 12 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. All the relationship rituals were being performed in the temple. The plaintiffs are using the said vacant site of 12 cents in performing the temple functions. The plaintiffs have also constructed two rooms in a portion at the corner of the said vacant site. Those two rooms are assigned by the first defendant as door Nos. 72-C and D. The plaintiffs have proposed to construct a Kalyana Mandapam in the remaining vacant space, for better and convenient use of the people of the said community. The plaintiffs have also put up iron barbed fencing around the vacant site including the said two rooms. To show the physical features of the property, the plaintiffs have produced a rough sketch wherein door Nos. 72-C and D on the vacant site have been marked as "stuv". Now the Government have taken steps to classify the suit vacant site as a Poramboke land. The first defendant without knowing the history of the suit property and the nearby Ramar temple is attempting to initiate proceedings to classify the land as "poramboke". The defendants 1 and 2 have no right or interest over the plaint schedule property. On 11. 8. 1982, the third party people began to disturb the plaintiffs' possession and attempted to trespass into the suit property. The first plaintiff took criminal actions against such illegal acts of the said third party. A police complaint was also lodged by the first plaintiff on 11. 8. 1982. Hence the suit for injunction.

(3.) THE second defenant has adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant which runs as follows: the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. The averments in the plaint that the plaintiffs are permanent residents of Chinnavedampatti Village and that a temple called Ramar Koil belonged to Adi Dravida Community and that the plaintififs are maintaining the temple and that the adjacent vacant space of 12 cents also belonged to the Adi Dravida Community and that they are using the same during the festival time and that the suit property has been fenced with iron barbed wire are all false to the knowledge of this defendant. The plaintiffs have no right or title in respect of 12 cents of vacant land lying adjacent to the said Ramar Koil. The plaintiffs have made an attempt to trespass into the said vacant land of 12 cents, and the said attempt of the plaintiffs was thwarted by the timely intervention of the Government. After having failed in all their attempts, the plaintiffs with an ulterior motive have chosen to file false suit with frivolous allegations. Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat office has been constructed in G. S. No. 365 in Athipalayam Road, wherein 50 cents of vacant space in and around the said building is in existence. The said vacant site belongs to the Government. The plaintiffs and their men are making hectic attempt to encroach 50 cents of land. Already appropriate action has been taken by the Government to prevent the plaintiffs and others to encroach the properties. Only to circumvent the law and with an aim to encroach upon this property, the plaintiffs have chosen to file this kind of frivolous suit,that too, against the real owners of the property. The plaintiffs are not using the vacant site for the purpose of temple festival from time immemorial as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs.