The entitlement to relief of injunction on Government Poramboke land is limited to the portion of the land in the plaintiff's possession, and the court's decision is influenced by the legal principles outlined in the decisions referred to by the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 12.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The defendants in O.S.No.5 of 2001 are the appellants in the second appeal.

4. Suit for permanent injunction.

5. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the First Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction in respect of a Government Poramboke land restraining its use by the Public?

2. Whether claiming possession through a "B' Memo would entitle the First Respondent /Plaintiff to claim the relief of injunction?

3. When the trial Court found that as per Ex.A6 the plaintiff is in possession of only 6 1/4 cents, whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in granting injunction in respect of the entire extent of the Suit property, which is about 41.37 cents?"

6. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow campus, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

7. Considering the pleas and the materials placed on record by the respective parties, the suit property is found to be the Government Poramboke land. The plaintiff claims to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Per contra, the defendants claiming that the suit property being the Government Poramboke land, situated adjacent to the Amman Temple, according to them, the devotees and the local villagers used to gather in large members along with their families at the time of Pongal festival for offering the prayers and for the common celebrations in the suit property and therefore, according to them, the plaintiff is not entitled to restrain them from enjoying the suit property for the abovesaid purposes and further, put forth the case that the plaintiff has no legal right or title over the suit property and also not in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

8. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked and Exs.C1 to C2 were also marked.

9. As above pointed out, the parties have not disputed that the suit property is the Government Poramboke Land and the same could also be noted from the documents marked as Exs.X1 to X4 being the "A" register and FMB Sketch. From the abovesaid documents, it is evident that the suit property has been classified as Malaimedu and admittedly, belongs to the Government.

10. From the materials placed on record, it is found that the total extent of the suit property is 41.37 cents. The suit property being the Government Poramboke land, the plaintiff would claim that he had been paying the penal charges to the Government and also put up the house structure in the suit property and enjoying the same and it is only the defendants, who are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and hence, according to him, the suit has come to be laid against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.

11. As regards the payment of the penal charges, we have only Ex.A6 said to have been issued by the Thasildar to th