SUNDARAM Vs. LAKSHMIKANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The defendant, who lost his defence before the trial Court in O. S. No. 1086 of 1982 but succeeded in the appeal in A. S. No. 1 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai against the said Judgment of the first appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint in brief for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: the suit is for bare injunction in respect of door No. 56c, Big Street, Thiruvannamalai. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adinam Anjikoil Devasthanam of Kundrakudi. The plaintiff has put up a thatched house over the vacant site at his own cost and has been paying the site rent alone at Rs. 10/- per month from 1974 onwards. The present door number is 46c. Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adinam in its communication in O. Mu. HL. 973/80 had recognised the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. In addition to it, the plaintifif has also produced a ration card issued by the Civil Supplies Department to the plaintiff for door No. 56c. The defendant who has no right or title in respect of the suit property has approached the plaintiff demanding to execute a rent deed in his favour. The plaintiff has informed that he is a tenant in respect of the vacant site under Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adinam but the defendant was insisting the plaintiff to execute the rent deed in favour of him and also trying to remove the plaintiff forcibly from the plaint schedule property, unless the defendant establishes his right over the suit property, he has no locus standi to demand the plaintiff to execute any rent deed in respect of the suit property. Hence to protect his interest in respect of the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction.

(3.) THE defendant has filed a written statement with the following averments: the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not residing in the suit property. The plaint schedule house is situate in Survey No. 1159/1 which does not belong to Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adinam. The door No. 56c is situate in a road poramboke. One Rajammal Ammal was residing in the house door No. 56c for a long time and was paying municipal house tax to door No. 56c as per the Tax Assessment No. 1847. Subsequent to Rajammal Ammal, the defendant is in occupation of the door No. 56c and he was paying house tax to the Municipality. After the death of Rajammal Ammal, the house tax assessment has been transferred in the name of the defendant. As per the resolution passed by Tiruvannamalai Municipality dated 13. 10. 1981 (Resolution No. 242), the Municipality has recommended for assigning the land in which door No. 56c stands in favour of the defendant. Th plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.