KANCHI KAMAKOTI MADAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 15,550/- with interest on the basis that the suit properties situated in Nannilam Taluk, Pillur Village in Survey No. 175/2 to the extent of 2 cents of Nanja lands and in Kollumangudi Village in Survey No. 276/1 to the extent of 19 cents in Nanja Survey No. 276/4 to the extent of 22 cents to the total extent of 43 cents which belong to the plaintiff Mutt and according to the plaintiff the third respondent has encroached the same in the year 1980 for putting up the road without following the land acquisition proceedings and in view of the same after giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit for recovery claiming compensation is filed. The claim is stated to have been made at the rate of Rs. 350 per cent for 43 cents and at the rate of Rs. 50 per cent towards damages.

(2.) THE defendants have filed the written statement. One of the main grounds taken by the defendants is that the third defendant was not properly explained,that there is no Kollumangudi Village Panchayat. The said Kollumangudi Village belongs to Pillur Panchayat and the Pillur Panchayat has not been made as a party. The defendants have also denied the allegation of encroachment stating that a part of the suit property belong to HRNC Department and the road in existence from time immemorial. It is the further case of the defendants that the price cannot be more than Rs. 60 per cent. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 6,550/- along with 6% interest. It was as against the said judgement and decree of the Trial Court the defendants have filed the appeal and the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal has set aside the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. It is as against the said judgement of the First Appellate Court the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) WHILE admitting the Second Appeal this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: