JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed in A.S. No. 63 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2011 passed in O.S. No. 565 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi.

1. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 565 of 2008 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi for mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the construction made by the defendant in the second schedule property and for removal of encroachment in the second schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant filed A.S. No. 63 of 2013 before the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent finding, the defendant has filed the above second appeal.

3. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board as plaintiff has filed the suit contending that the plaint schedule properties were acquired in an award dated 29.07.1988. They are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties from 13.09.1989 onwards. According to the plaintiff, the plaint second schedule property is part and parcel of the first schedule property. The defendant is an utter stranger in respect of the first and second schedule properties. The defendant has no right whatsoever over the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has encroached the suit schedule properties and has put up basement construction over the second schedule property illegally. Hence, he prayed for mandatory injunction.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the acquisition proceedings have been quashed by the High Court and hence, the plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the entire suit schedule properties belong to the Board and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In Paragraph No. 6 of the written statement, the defendant has contended that he has nothing to do with the second schedule property and the suit property belongs to one Suresh and 52 others. He further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit as against the wrong person without identifying the person who has put up construction in the second schedule property.

5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that the defendant has no connection whatsoever with the second schedule property and the defendant has also not produced any document to show that he owned the property in that area. Though the defendant has contended that the plaint second schedule property belonged to one Suresh, he has not produced any document to the said effect. In view of the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant, the trial Court proceeded to grant a decree for mandatory injunction as against the defendant.

6. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and arrived at a finding that the defendant has not produced any document whatsoever to establish his title or possession over the suit survey number. However, the defendant has deposed that he has got objection for removal of the construction in the second schedule property. The First Appellate Court has found that the defendant has not established his title or possession, is not entitled to raise any objection for removal of the encroachment made in the second schedule property.

7. The First Appellate Court has also found that one Suresh has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 17390 of 2013 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the said writ petition has been allowed on 28.10.2013. However, a writ appeal has been filed by the Housing Board in W.A. No. 1638 of 2016 in which an order of status quo has been granted and the writ appeal is pending. However, the defendant has nothing to do with the said proceedings. Since the defendant has no righ