ARULMIGU KALYANASUNDARI AMBIGA SAMEDHA SITHESWARASAMY THIRUKOIL Vs. VEERIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 made in A.S.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 made in O.S.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Valangaiman.

(2.) The appellant is plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Valangaiman. The appellant filed the present Second Appeal, challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the renovation work of tank, polluting the tank or interfering with the appellant temple and devotees who come to the temple. According to the appellant, the suit tank belongs to the appellant temple. The respondents were interfering with the appellant's renovation work of the tank that they are breeding fish and auction the license to catch fish and they are polluting the tank by throwing garbage and cow dung. The appellant gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station. On 006.2009, the respondent tried to breed fish in the tank and appellant defended the same and hence filed the suit for the above stated relief.

(3.) The respondents filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint and denied that suit tank belongs to the appellant. The respondents contended that the suit tank is panchayat Government poramboke tank and belongs to the entire village. The tank is in possession of the respondents and other villagers. The village people are using the water for their use and for their cattle. The village panchayat breed fish in the tank and auction the license to catch fish. From and out of the said income, they carry out poojas and renovation work for the temple and use for the benefit of the villagers. The appellant has no right over the suit tank and prayed for dismissal of the suit.