RATHNASAMY MUDALIAR Vs. RASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE C.M.A. has been filed against the order of remand by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in A.S.No.12 of 1990 on his file. THE first appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed suit O.S.No.171 of 1983 before the District Munsif, Seerghazhi against the respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining him, his men and agents from interfering with his possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of an extent of 7 cents in R.S.No.166/4 in No.91 Mudikandanallur Village in Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai Registration District with 22 coconut trees, plantains and trees like portia, vaagai and margoza. Pending C.M.A., he died and his legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 and 3. THE case as set out in the plaint is as follows: THE suit property was allotted to the plaintiff in a family partition between his paternal uncle and himself to be enjoyed by them jointly and the paternal uncle having died 40 years prior to the suit without leaving behind any heir or legal representative, he became the sole owner and in possession of the same. THE defendant/respondent used to work as a casual labourer in his wet lands in the village and as he was creating trouble demanding higher wages the plaintiff stopped engaging him as a casual labour from January, 1983. THE defendant had been nurturing the grievance against the plaintiff from the first week of March, 1983. He attempted to cut the trees in the fence line around the suit property. This was prevented by the plaintiff. He had been coming out from 29.3.1983 that he would cause interference to the plaintiff's possession of the property. THE defendant is not denying the title of the plaintiff but bent upon causing any once to him and the suit is therefore necessitated.

(2.) THE defendant has filed a written statement and an additional written statement with the following averments: THE title and possession of the plaintiff to the suit property are denied. THE defendant is poor Harijan in possession of 15 Kuzhis for the past 25 years bounded on the North by the Tank and east West and South by Channels. He has put fence all round and the property is in his possession and lock and key. He has raised the various trees. He is living in the hut built in the property and it is known to everybody in the village. THE enmity mentioned in the plaint is not true. THEre was no necessity for the defendant to cut the trees belonging to him. THE alternative prayer is not maintainable.

(3.) AS against this order of remand the present appeal has been filed.