A small piece of land admeasuring 240 square feet or thereabouts in Hajiar Street in Kumbakonam Town within Kumbakonam Registration District and Tanjore District (hereinafter referred to as 'demised land' for brevity) belonging to 'Arulmigu Ilupaiyadi Dharmaraja Drowpathi Amman Temple, Kumbakonam' (hereinafter referred to as 'said temple' for brevity) is the subject matter of this suit. To be noted, the superstructure standing on the demised land bears Door No.45.

2. One Ganapathy Ammal (hereinafter referred to as 'main lessee' for brevity) is a lessee under the said temple with regard to demised land and her spouse is Shanmugam. One Gowri Shankar (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for brevity) is a sub lessee under the main lessee with regard to demised land. The appellant who had become a sub lessee under the main lessee with regard to the demised land and superstructure thereon is said to have purchased the superstructure from the main lessee subsequently. The appellant is running an eatery therein from 1998.

3. On 5.7.2007, said temple filed a suit in O.S.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam' (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court' for brevity). In this suit filed by the said temple in the trial court, the main lessee and her spouse Shanmugam were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. Appellant Gowri Shankar was arrayed as defendant No.3.

4. Aforesaid suit filed by the said temple in the trial court was predicated on the ground that the appellant has put up a new superstructure in the demised land. In other words, the appellant having allegedly put up a new superstructure in the demised land is the cause of action for the suit.

5. Prayer in the suit consists of two limbs and are of upmost importance. The first limb of the prayer is for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants (appellant, main lessee and her spouse) to remove the new superstructure put up in the demised land at their cost and bring back/rescind the property to its erstwhile position. The second limb of the prayer is for a permanent injunction restraining defendants therein (appellant, main lessee and her spouse) from putting up any construction whatsoever in the demised land. Besides these two limbs, usual limb of prayers for costs and residuary limb are also there.

6. The main lessee and her spouse who were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit respectively remained ex parte and did not contest the suit. The appellant who was arrayed as defendant No.3 entered appearance and contested the suit. In the trial court, five exhibits, i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the said temple and 15 exhibits, i.e., Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked on behalf of the appellant (defendant No.3 in the suit). Two exhibits being Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. Besides this, Exs.X-1 to X-3 were also marked. On the side of the said temple, which is the plaintiff in the trial court, two witnesses were examined. One A.Murugan, hereditary trustee of the said temple was examined as P.W.1 and one V.Krishnamurthy, third party to the proceedings was examined as P.W.2 to speak about the original use which the demised land was put to. On behalf of defendants, the third defendant examined himself as D.W.1. S.Kannadasan and R.Chandira, third parties to the suit and persons in the locality were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 primarily to show that the appellant has not put up any new construction.

7. Aforesaid suit was disposed of by the trial court in and by judgment and decree dated 30.6.2011. By this judgment and decree, the suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed. In other words, one limb of the prayer was acceded to and the other limb of the prayer was dismissed. To be precise, the prayer for mandatory injunction was dismissed holding inter-alia that the plaintiff has not established that any new construction has been put up and the permanent injunction prayer was decreed as th