The plaintiff failed to prove the location of the temple, leading to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated April 2, 2018 passed in A.S.No.62 of 2017 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated October 25, 2017 passed in O.S.No.579 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Erode was confirmed.

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, against Judgment and Decree dated April 2, 2018 passed in A.S.No.62 of 2017 on the file of ‘First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode’ [‘First Appellate Court’ for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated October 25, 2017 passed in O.S.No. 579 of 2014 on the file of ‘Principal District Munsif Court, Erode’ [‘Trial Court’ for short] was confirmed.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN BRIEF:

3. Suit Property is a Temple situated in R.Survey No.285 near Ganapathipalayam four way junction. The Suit Property is bounded by the Erode-Karur Main Road on the North; the lands of Sethupathi Gounder, Kadirvel and Indrani on the South; Ganapathipalayam – Sivagiri Road on the West; and Kurangupallam Canal on the East. The Erode-Karur Main Road is situated in R.Survey No.607 and it is 15-18 feet away from the Temple.

3.1. The plaintiff, the President of the Temple appointed by the local community, has been overseeing its administration. On December 4, 2014, the 3rd and 4th defendants asked to relocate the Temple as they are planning on expanding the roads. Thereafter, on December 12, 2014, they again threatened the plaintiff to relocate the Temple. The plaintiff along with people in the locality clarified that the Temple is located in a different survey number and that it would not obstruct the expansion of the road in any manner. But they remained unyielding, causing trouble even thereafter. Apprehending that the 3rd and 4th defendants might at any moment cause trouble to relocate the temple, the plaintiff has come up with this Suit for permanent injunction, costs and other reliefs.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE IN BRIEF:

4. The second defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the other defendants. They have averred that Suit Property is situated near the Ganapathipalayam intersection of Erode-Karur State Highway No.84 and Nanjaikalamangalam – Sivagiri Road. They contend that the description of property as provided by the plaintiff is wrong and misleading. The Suit Idol is placed in a high platform situated in R.Survey No.607 on the Highway Boundary. One Venkatachalam son of Muthusamy Gounder had filed W.P.No.6887 of 2013 before this Court and as per the Order passed therein, the defendants proceeded to widen the Highway. The Idol being located in the Highway boundary is hindering the widening of the Highway. As per the guideline issued by this Court in the said Writ Petition, the defendants requested to relocate the Idol. The plaintiff with a view to obstruct and delay the expansion of the Highway, has falsely filed this Suit. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT:

5. At trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.l, one Ramasamy was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5.1. Upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that the Suit Temple is situated only in R.Survey No.285 and not in R.Survey No.607, which belongs to the Highway Department. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff not pressed the Interlocutory Application filed by him seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Original Suit.

FIRST APPELLATE COURT:

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff approached the First Appel