JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.224 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 passed in O.S.No.377 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.377 of 1998 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam and in A.S.No.224 of 2005, by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

3. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.377 of 1998, on the file of the trial Court, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents, men, servants or anybody claiming through them in any way using the suit property for any purpose other than agriculture or to carry out any construction works thereon and also for the relief of granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants and any person claiming through them to remove the newly put up thatched house in a portion of the suit property and to restore the suit property to its original condition, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

4. The case of the plaintiff / Arulmighu Dhenupureeswaraswami Devasthanam, Represented by its Executive Officer, is that the suit property is a punja cultivable land belonging to the Devasthanam. The first defendant was a cultivating tenant along with other punja properties of the plaintiff-Devasthanam and he was paying Rs.33/- per fasali, as lease hold rent for 1 acre 63 cents. The defendants were cultivating the punja lands and the Temple authority was receiving the lease rent. The second defendant is the brother of the first defendant and the third defendant is the son of the second defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 have no right over the suit property. The first defendant, who was a lessee, without the knowledge of the Temple, had given an extent of 0.98 cents out of his lease hold lands to the defendants 2 and 3 on some family arrangements between them. The first defendant has also sent a deed of surrender, dated 27.08.1994 to the Devasthanam, consenting for the transfer of lease hold rights in favour of the second defendant. Since no requisition was made by the second defendant, the surrender deed, dated 27.08.1994 was kept in abeyance and not acted upon and the said lands stand in the name of the Temple and the first defendant was cultivating the said lands till 1994. As the first defendant was the original lessee, he has to pay the rent to the Temple, as per the lease arrangement entered between the parties. For the past two years, no cultivation has been done by the second defendant. On 22.06.1998, the plaintiff, on his periodical visit, found that the third defendant was digging the earth for the purpose of laying foundation to construct a building and informed him that the suit property being an agricultural land cannot be used for any other purpose other than agriculture and the defendants also agreed to stop the construction work. On 30.06.1998 also, there was no such work carried on and after 7 days, when the plaintiff visited the property, the third defendant had put up walls with bricks and mud and was putting thatched roof and the plaintiff had managed to stop the third defendant from carrying out further construction work. The defendants have openly stated that they would put up a permanent structure in the place of the existing thatched house and the plaintiff cannot do anything and they would put up two more houses in the remaining vacant area of the suit property. The plaintiff further states that the defendants have no right to use the property to any other purpose other than agriculture. The defendants have converted the agricultural land into a house s