JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Bhavani, Erode District, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2007 in O.S.No.429 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani, Erode District.)

1. The plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction has filed this Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Bhavani, Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2007 in O.S.No.429 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani, Erode. The parties are referred to in their litigative status as in the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.429 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Bhavani, Erode District, for the following reliefs:

“(a) restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by means of a permanent injunction,

(b) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.”

3. The property which is the subject matter in dispute is hereinbelow reproduced:

“Other Language”

(Amended as per I.A.No.1435/2005 dated 25.01.2006).”

The pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants are briefly extracted hereinbelow:

Plaintiff’s Case:

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction with reference to the property described hereinabove. Originally, the suit was filed for a total extent of 2434 sq.ft comprising of D.Nos.179 and 170. The suit was thereafter amended and the extended was reduced to 1236 sq.ft and restricted to Door No.169 alone. The boundary on the West was originally described as that of A.P. Chellappa Gounder and this was later amended as Dr. Bakthavachalam’s house. The plaintiff’s case is that the larger extent of the suit property which was a vacant site originally belonged to one Kolantha Gounder. He had built tiled houses over this vacant site. Thereafter, the property was sold to one Chinna Thambi Gounder under a registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.1943.

5. The plaintiff’s parents had taken the properties on lease for running a hotel in the year 1957 in the name and style of “Hotel Japan”. The larger extent of the suit property was sold to the plaintiff’s mother Krishnaveniammal by the sons of Chinna Thambi Gounder under a Sale Deed dated 30.03.1977. Thereafter, the Survey Number was sub-divided and re-numbered as S.No.1642/1C and Door Numbers were assigned to the building as D.Nos.169 and 170. The plaintiff’s parents could not run the hotel business and therefore, they had leased out the same to the tenants. One of the tenant was running the hotel business and the other a fruit shop in the same premises. The Arulmighu Badrakaliyamman Koil is situate to the South of the suit property in S.F.No.1624/2. The defendants wanted to extend the area of the Temple and therefore, demolished the suit property in the months of March 2005. They requested the plaintiff not to precipitate the matter and therefore, no action was taken by the plaintiff, particularly, since the demolition is for the benefit of the Temple.

6. The plaintiff would submit that the defendants had no right or title or interest in the property comprised in Survey No.1624/1C. However, they had been giving out that they would demolish the suit buildings. This threat was first made on the night of 22.07.2005. Immediately, the plaintiff’s mother had lodged a complaint with the Anthiyur Police Station and a police bundobust was provided through the night. However, the defendants reiterated their threat that they would demolish the suit buildings. Therefore, the suit came to be filed for and on behalf of the plaintiff by his Power Agent who is his brother-in-law.

Defendants Case:

7.