(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.13 of 2011 dated 17.12.2011 confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.271 of 2000 of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu dated 06.09.2010.)

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the trial Court and First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for Permanent Injunction in respect of 'A' and 'B' Schedule property the present Second Appeal came to be filed.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Second Appeal is as under:

2.(a) The suit properties are classified as Grama Natham and the Plaintiff is in enjoyment of the same. His predecessor also in enjoyment of the suit property from time immemorial. They put up thatched hut and using the same as residence. The suit properties are continuous and hut of the plaintiffs party covers in 'A' and 'B' Schedule. The Government has issued Patta in favour of the Plaintiff bearing Patta No.595. Therefore, the Plaintiff become the owner of the property. The Village Panchayat assessed house tax to the hut of the Plaintiff and collecting house tax. The Defendants are strangers. Second Defendant is native of Plaintiff village and working under the First Defendant. On 24.09.2000 the Defendants trespassed in the suit properties and attempted to destroy the suit properties and the same was thwarted. Hence the suit.

3. It is the case of the Defendant that the suit properties are neither adjacent nor contiguous. Survey No.390 absolutely belongs to the Temple. It has been recorded as “Thirukkulam” in Revenue records. The Defendant has been in absolute enjoyment of the same and the has renovated the “Thirukkulam” at the cost around Rs.15,00,000/-. The Defendant is performing the float festival every year in the month of “Chithrai” at the time of “Brahmmotsavam”. The vacant land around the temple tank has been fenced. The adjoining survey No.104 belonging to the Defendants. Defendants have no necessity to encroach upon their own land. On the other hand the Plaintiff attempted to trespass upon the Defendants property by put up a fence. Plaintiff has no right over in Survey No.390/2 and the patta issued to him is also illegal. The Revenue authorities have no right to sub-divide the land belong to the Defendants. The Defendants continuously in possession and enjoyment of the property Survey No.390/2 which is part of temple tank, as true owner. The Plaintiff has neither title nor possession. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the side of the Plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the Defendants two witnesses were examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. The trial Court has framed the following two issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

2. To what other relief the Plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On the basis of the evidence and materials the trial Court decreed the Suit. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the same, as against which the present Second Appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence properly. Exs.B.2 to 5 and 9 indicate that the Appellant has filed Appeal against grant of Patta. Similarly Ex.B.5 Proceedings of the Collector is also clearly indicated that the Patta issued in favour of the Plaintiff would be cancelled within 10 days and the evidence of C.W.1 also shows that the Plaintiff has no possession over the 'B' Schedule Property. Similarly P.W.1 himself admitted that Eastern side of 'A' Schedule property tank is situated. The above fact clearly indicate that 'B' schedule property is “Thirukkulam” belongs to the Temple and the sub-division has been taken place only in the year 1996 without notice to the Temple. Therefore merely on the basis of the Sub-Division when 'B' Schedule property belongs to temple, the