JUDGMENT: This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 rendered in A.S.No.40 of 1991 by the Court Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 rendered in O.S.No.531 of 1988 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, it comes to be known that the appellant herein has filed the suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further burrowing the schedule of properties and for such other reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule mentioned properties and the defendants are making bricks and selling them; that the defendants approached the plaintiff for getting the schedule mentioned lands for making bricks; that on 14.11.1984, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement as per the terms of which, the defendants were entitled to remove earth from the suit property for a period of three and half years from 14.11.1984; that the plaintiff received Rs.18,500 as consideration on the same day from the defendants and the possession of the properties was handed over to the defendants; that according to the terms of the agreement, the defendants were entitled to burrow the land upto a depth of 2-1/4 feet and the defendants should not dig up more than 2-1/4 feet for any reason whatsoever and the defendants should entrust the possession of the schedule of properties to the plaintiff on 13.5.1988; that further when the defendants entrust the schedule of properties to the plaintiff, the land should be even without ditches or burrows and should be fit for cultivation; that from 14.5.1988 onwards, the plaintiff made repeated requests in person and through well-wishers, to hand back possession of the schedule of properties, but the defendants continued to excavate and make bricks upto the depth of 5 feet as the price of bricks rose all of a sudden; that the defendants were exploiting the land of the plaintiff in contravention of the agreement.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have violated the oral agreement by digging the land upto the foot of the palmyrah trees, whereas they have agreed to leave a radius of 6 feet around the palmyrah trees; that because of the action of the defendants, the two palmyrah trees are about to wither and fall; that the plaintiff is unable to perform agricultural operations in the schedule properties; that the loss due to non-performance of agricultural operations comes to about Rs.15,000; that the loss because of the withering of the palmyrah trees is estimated at Rs.8,000; that the loss owing to the mining of the land more than the stipulated 2-1/4 feet works out to Rs.20,000; that the expenditure, the plaintiff will have to incur to make the land even and regular to make it suitable for cultivation is calculated at Rs.15,000; that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants enumerating all the losses accruing to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff in his notice dated 1.11.1988 had demanded Rs.43,000 as loss sustained by him and Rs.15,000, if the defendants hand over possession in favour of the plaintiff without levelling the schedule of properties; that the defendants having received the legal notice on 3.11.1988 and 5.11.1988, sent a reply on 25.11.1988 with false allegations; that the plaintiff reserves his right to sue for damages and compensation from the defendants in a competent court of law in due course; that the defendants were causing irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff by the continued possession of the schedule of properties which is contrary to the terms of the agreement and hence the suit.

5. On the contrary, the defendants would file a written statement, thereby denying all the allegations of the plaint and further submitting that they have scrupulously followed al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document