Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3813
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
PALANIAPPAN - Appellant
Versus
IDOL VEERESWARASWAMY AND IDOL MARIAMMAN - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 212, 213 of 2001
Decided on : 19-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
M. Saravanan, Adv., T.V. Krishnamachari, Adv., P. Athimoolapandian, Adv., N. Damodaran, Adv.
The main legal point established is the entitlement to mandatory injunction due to encroachment and violation of injunction orders.
Headnote:
Encroachment - Property Dispute - O.S.No.644 of 1990, O.S.No.988 of 1991 - S.F.No.1654, S.F.No.1655, S.F.No.1634 - The court discussed the ownership of the suit properties, violation of injunction orders, and encroachment of land. Key legal provisions include the principles of ownership, injunction orders, and encroachment, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.644 of 1990 seeking to restrain the defendants from constructing on the suit property, while the defendants in O.S.No.988 of 1991 sought to prevent interference with the school property. The court found the plaintiff entitled to mandatory injunction and dismissed O.S.No.988 of 1991.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the plaintiff entitled to mandatory injunction in O.S.No.644 of 1990 due to encroachment and violation of injunction orders. O.S.No.988 of 1991 was dismissed.
Issues: Ownership of suit properties, entitlement to injunction, and pending suit O.S.No.289 of 1991.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory injunction due to encroachment and violation of injunction orders. The pending suit O.S.No.289 of 1991 did not affect the entitlement to relief.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree of the lower court.
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
1. S.A.No.212 of 2001 had been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.644 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur.
2. S.A.No.213 of 2001 had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.988 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur.
3. By common judgment dated 21.02.1994, the learned District Munsif, Karur, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.988 of 1991. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 1990, who was the defendant in O.S.No.988 of 1991 had filed A.S.No.66 of 2000 and A.S.No.67 of 2000 before the Additional District Court, Karur. These appeals were made over to the Subordinate Court, Karur. By common judgment dated 18.10.2000, both the appeals were allowed necessitating the defendants in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.988 of 1991 to tile the above second appeals.
O.S.No.644 of 1990:-
4. This suit had been filed by the plaintiff, Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, against three defendants, K.Palaniappan, Chockalingam and Balasubramanian, who were described as the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the School Building Committee, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk, seeking a judgment and decree restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit property and for costs of the suit.
5. The suit properties were described as Hec.1.60.5 ares in Iyan Dry S.F.No.1654 and Hec.2.58.0 in S.F.No.1655 together with all easementary rights, trees, pathway, etc., in Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the properties belonged to the plaintiff Idols. The Fit Person / Executive Officer of Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, had been appointed to manage and administer the plaintiff's temple situated in Koilpalayam, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. The HR & CE Deputy Commissioner, had advised the Fit Person to assume charge of the plaintiff's temple.
6. It is claimed that the defendants had unlawfully encroached on the suit properties. It had been stated that the title to the suit properties had been affirmed in an earlier suit in O.S.No.625 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. The revenue records, Chitta and Adangal also affirmed the ownership of the plaintiff Idols with respect to the suit properties. The defendants had put up a school building in the suit property without getting any permission from the plaintiff. The properties are under the care and custody of the HR & CE Board. It is under these circumstances, the suit had been filed restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit properties.
7. The plaint was subsequently amended and the relief was altered to grant a decree and judgment to remove the superstructure, which had been put up in the suit properties, failing which for removal of the superstructure through Court at the costs of the defendants.
8. The first defendant filed a written statement, stating that there was a Middle School in Puliyur Village, which was upgraded as Government High School and since space was not sufficient, the first defendant, as Ex-Village Munsif, convened a meeting of the local public and parents and from their contribution, put up a construction to accommodate the school. It had been stated that the school is functioning for a public purpose. It had been stated that they have given a representation for assignment of the properties at local value. It had also been stated that the defendants obtained lease from the cultivating tenant and put up a building. It had been stated that the suit should be dismissed.
9. The second defendant filed an additional written statement, stating that the construction was put up with a bona fide hope that it would be regularised. It had been stated that without seeking the reliefs of declaration and possession, mandatory i
