JUDGMENT :

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. The respondent in A.S. No. 44 of 2006 has filed this second appeal seeking for the relief to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge; Tenkasi.

2. In earlier, the first appellant filed a suit against the respondents in O.S. No. 101 off 2002' on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought 'for the relief of declaration, declaring that the first appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit second item of the property. Along with the said prayer, the first appellant/plaintiff also prayed for the relief of injunction restraining the respondents in demolishing the construction made by the appellant in the second item of the property. Further for the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the actual construction made by the plaintiff. By judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi decreed the suit with compensatory cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Aggrieved over the said findings, the respondents/defendants in this appeal preferred an appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 44 of 2006 for the relief to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. After elaborate enquiry, by judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2006, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi had allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with respective cost. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the first appellant/plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court.

4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff purchased the suit first schedule property from one Kuththalvadivammal vide sale deed dated 25.01.1993. During the time of purchase, there was an existing house is present in the suit schedule property. After purchase, the plaintiff demolished the same and constructed the house, leaving one feet width space in the southern side of the suit schedule property. Due to the panchayat election, the plaintiff had previous enmity with the first defendant. During the time of construction, the plaintiff constructed the sunshade over the window and door on the east-west wall. On seeing the same, the first defendant by using his power, threatened the plaintiff by saying that the sunshade was constructed in encroached portion. The plaintiff replied to the second defendant that there was no encroachment made in the suit schedule property. Instead of request made by the plaintiff, the first respondent misusing his power, lodged a false complaint to the Tahsildar and to the Highways Officer. The officers also inspected the suit schedule property and told that there was no encroachment found in the suit property. Now the first defendant threatened the plaintiff by saying that a resolution was passed for the removal of alleged encroachment made by the plaintiff and that the first defendant sought for police protection in Pavoorchatram Police Station. Thereafter, the plaintiff contacted the Advocate and sent a telegram to the Inspector of Police, Pavoorchatram and Block Development Officer, Keelapavoor and also to the first defendant. The portions mentioned in the suit plaint as 'ABCD' is the first schedule and second schedule was mentioned as 'AEFD'. Further, the backyard portion was mentioned as 'BB1 CC1'. Since the highways road was situated in front of the house of the plaintiff, the defendants have not any power to remove anything from the plaintiff house. However, on 16.04.2002, after receiving the order of injunction passed by the Court in I.A. No. 379 of 2002 at about 10.30 to 11.30 a.m., the defendants came with JCB and demolished the second schedule property. So, the plaintiff is having right to restore the demolished portion by way of seeking mandatory injunction. Accordingly, for the reliefs stated supra the suit has been filed