A. RAJU Vs. A/M RAMANATHASWAMY THIRUKKOIL RAMESWARAM BY ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM TOWN, TALUK AND MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2013 passed in A.S.No.07 of 2012 on the file Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, confirming the Decree and Judgment of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi dated 15.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2006.

(2.) The appellant is the second defendant in O.S.No.90 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. The respondent filed the said suit for mandatory injunction to demolish the terrace portion put up by the defendants in the suit property. According to the respondent, the respondent is the owner of three acres of coconut grove and the first defendant was lessee for the enjoyment of yield of coconut grove. The first defendant without obtaining any permission from the respondent, permitted the appellant to put up the super structure in the suit property. Appellant has no right to put up superstructure. The respondent came to know about the superstructure in the year 2005, obtained permission from the Commissioner of HR &CE Department and filed suit for the relief stated above. The executive officer is authorised to file a suit as per scheme decree dated 05.03.1960. The first defendant died pending suit. The defendants 3 to 7 were impleaded as legal heirs of the first defendant. The second defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 3 to 7. According to the appellant, the grand father of the appellant and the first defendant one Balappan was the lessee of coconut grove. After his death, the first defendant, who is the son of, one of the sons of Balappan became lessee. The appellant is son of another son of Balappan. As a legal heirs of Balappan, they are having the right on the lease granted by the respondent. The appellant got oral permission from the respondent and has put up superstructure. It is not correct to state that the respondent came to know about the superstructure only in the year 2005. The superstructure was put up in the year 2002. The officials of the respondent regularly come to the suit property to collect the lease amount. The executive officer has no authority to file the suit and the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, Trial Court framed necessary issues. Before the learned Judge, one Dhanasekaran, was examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the respondent and marked three documents as Exs.A1 to A3. The appellant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses namely Balasubramanian and Marimuthu as D.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Trial Judge considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the appellant has no right to put up the superstructure. Against the said judgment, the appellant filed A.S.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi. The first Appellate Judge considering the points for consideration, pleadings, materials on record and the judgment of the trial court, dismissed the appeal.