NATARAJAN Vs. RAMAPURAM PANCHAYAT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff alleges that the 5 tanks involved in the suit belongs to one T.A. Gopalasamy and Sampathkumar and the plaintiff has taken lease of the right to fish in these tanks and has executed a lease deed on 23.3.1974 in favour of T.A. Gopalasamy for six years and in favour of Sampathkumar on 1.4.1974 for five years and the plaintiff is entitled to have the fishery right in these tanks. THE plaintiff further contends that the defendants are attempting to prevent the plaintiff from exercising his right of fishing in the tanks and so the defendants must be restrained by an order of injunction.

(3.) THE petitioner Gopalswami filed Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 against the Collector of Thanjavur and the Panchayat to quash the order of the Collector dated 1.3.1975 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.2.1963. That petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner has to establish his fishery right in a suit where there can be a full-fledged trial in the claims made by the petitioner under Ex.B.3. THE petitioner who claims the lease of fishery right in the tank under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar has to establish that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has obtained lease of the fishery right in those tanks. So the plaintiff has to establish with documentary evidence with regard to the right and title of Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar and with regard to the ownership of the tanks and that the petitioners are the lessees with regard to the fishing right in those tanks. Unless the plaintiff establishes that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy are the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has acquired fishery right of the tanks by way of prescription of grant, the plaintiff cannot acquire any lease of fishing right in those tanks. Admittedly, to establish the right of ownership over the tanks, Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not filed any suit. THE observation of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 is that the petitioner therein ie., Gopalsamy has to establish his fishery right in the suit in a full-fledged trial. So as per the direction only Gopalsamy has to file the suit and establish his fishery right in the suit tanks. Unless and until the rights of Gopalsamy and Sampath Kumar are established by an order of the Court, the plaintiff cannot claim any lease of the fishery right under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. THE plaintiff has also not produced any documents to show that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy had right. Even before the Collector, Sampathkumar, inspite of his receipt of notice from the Collector, has not appeared before the Collector and has not produced any documents. THE order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.2 shows that the fishery right of the tank vests with Ramapuram Panchayat in Thanjavur Taluk.