JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed in A.S. No.97 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.10.1999 passed in O.S. No.162 of 1995, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.162 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal. He filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, namely, (1) State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Salem, 2. the Assistant Collector, Namakkal District, 3, the Additional Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Namakkal, from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit properties as described in the plaint are as follows:-

1. Item No.1 - Land measuring 42 feet X 20 feet in S.No.495/3 of Namakkal Town with a temple and other buildings.

2. Item No.2 - Land measuring 80 feet X 20 feet in S.No.495/3 with a building connected with the temple.

The plaintiff, Arulmighu Theekulipaintha Moondru Kundathu Amman Parambarai Uravinmurai Vazhipattu Manram represented by its President and Secretary, has contended that the suit temple is in existence for more than 400 years and that it is not causing any hindrance for the free flow of traffic in any way. The further contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants wanted to remove all the constructions on the suit properties and on 20.03.1995 the officials of the Revenue Department picked up quarrel with the Secretary of the plaintiff Mandram (Society). According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and their predecessors have been in possession of the suit properties for more than 400 years and thus they have prescribed title by adverse possession and prescription. They have, therefore, prayed that the defendants should be permanently injuncted from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

2. The third defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 1 and 2. In the written statement the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties was denied. It is further contended that the plaintiff had encroached upon the suit properties belonging to the Tamil Nadu Highways Department and causing nuisance to the general public. According to them, the plaintiff Mandram (Society) was created very recently and no injunction can be granted against the Tamilnadu Highways Department who is the true owner of the suit properties.

3. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after full contest, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that though the plaintiff had contended that the suit temple is in existence for more than 400 years and requested the defendants to produce the documents in respect of the suit properties, the defendants did not adduce any documentary evidence to rebut the contention of the plaintiff and therefore it has to be held that the plaintiff has prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession and prescription. On an appeal by the defendants in A.S.No.97 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. It is further held that the plaintiff did not prove their long, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit properties and thus has not established either possession or adverse possession over the same.

4. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No.97 of 2000, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

5. Notice of motion was ordered in the second appeal and after several adjournments the matter is posted today for final hearing.

6. Admittedly, the suit properties are Government lands belonging to the Tamilnadu Highway