V PONNAIYA Vs. NANDAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment in A. S. No. 133 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The plaintiff, who has filed the suit in O. S. No. 134 of 1994 before the District Munsif, Gobichettipalaym for an order of bare injunction and lost the same before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:

(3.) THE defendant has filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff came to the suit property as a tenant only in the year 1980-81 and not in the year 1970 as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff is not in possession of 60 feet on the east west and 22 feet on the north south and 35 feet on the east as alleged in the plaint. He is not in possession of the property adverse to the interest of the Tamil Nadu Government. There was no landlord and tenant relationship exists between the plaintiff and his vendor Nachiammal at any point of time. The plaintiff has not constructed any bath room at the point marked as "j" in the rough sketch. He has also not put up any thatched partition at the point "t I" or I H marked portion in the rough sketch. The bath room was constructed by Nachiammal. As per the agreement of sale dated 25. 3. 1986 between Nachiammal and the plaintiff, it was for 2800 sq. ft. only (85 feet x 35 feet) for a sale price of Rs. 26,500/ -. Since the plaintiff is not in a position to pay Rs. 26,500/-, he had purchased only a lessor extent of 1560 sq. ft for a sale price of Rs. 18,600/ -. The suit property originally belonged to Dasappa Gounder. Subsequently, many plots have been formed in the suit property and many people are in possession and enjoyment of the plots. It is not a Government Poramboke land. After taking a sale deed for 1560 sq. ft. the plaintiff asked for an order of injunction in respect of 2800 sq. ft. The defendant has not made any attempt either on 5. 4. 1994 or 11. 6. 1994 to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property which was purchased by him under the sale deed. The plaintiff is not in possession of the entire plaint schedule property. At the time of plaintiff's daughter's marriage, the plaintiff had altered his house purchased by him under the sale deed from Nachiammal. The suit claim is not maintainable. The plaint schedule is not the property purchased by the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 3. 7. 1986. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.