KUPPUSAMY Vs. ARULMIGU PUTHU MARIAMMAN KOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2002 in A.S.No,6 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1994 in O.S.No,614 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint are as follows: THE suit property is a vacant site belonging to the first respondent-first defendant-Temple. It is immediately on the east of the plaintiff's house. THE plaintiff purchased his house from the previous owner Ramaswami Mudaliar's heirs, by means of registered sale deed, dated 14.2.1985. THE previous owner was enjoying the suit property as a lessee of the first defendant-Temple, paying annual rent of Rs.15/- for the vacant site. After purchase by the plaintiff, he is in possession. THE plaintiff is tethering his cow and calf in the suit property and also storing hay-rick and rubbish. He has put up a fence on the northern side. THE first defendant is aware of the plaintiff's possession and right as a tenant. THE Executive Officer has changed the records and not receiving the rent. THE plaintiff cannot be evicted except by due process of law. However, the defendants are taking steps to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and prayed for a decree.

(3.) THE trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and in the written statement, has framed four issues and considering the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-8, dismissed the suit. Against that, the plaintiff preferred appeal. THE learned first appellate Judge, after framing two points for determination, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff.