The plaintiffs failed to establish lawful possession of the Suit Properties, and the Suit was not maintainable under Order I Rule 8 due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9th September, 2019 passed in A.S.No.71 of 2017 by the 'learned Subordinate Judge, Kangayam, Tiruppur District’, [hereinafter 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 21st September, 2017 passed in O.S.No.290 of 2010 by the 'learned District Munsif, Kangayam' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. In the year 1995-1996, the Government acquired 21 Acres of land in Survey Nos. 400/1, 402/2, 371/1B, 371/2B, 371/1C3 of Veeranampalayam Village, for the purpose of giving Assignment House Site Patta to the Adi Dravidar people. Accordingly, the 1st to 4th plaintiffs along with 671 other persons were granted House Site Pattas in the aforesaid survey numbers. All the Patta holders built thatched huts in the Suit Properties and resided there. Due to lack of basic facilities and amenities like water and electricity, all the Patta holders left the place and moved to rented houses. The thatched huts and boundaries of the Suit Properties were ruined over time. Thereafter, plaintiffs approached the Government authorities once again to measure the Suit Properties and fix the boundaries. Accepting the request, on 28th May, 2010, and on 1st July, 2010, the revenue officials measured the Suit Properties in the said survey numbers, and obtained signatures from the plaintiffs and other Patta holders after marking the boundaries. When the plaintiffs and other Patta holders cleared the Suit Properties and rebuilt the huts, the revenue officials raised no objection.

3.1. The 1st defendant, is the President of Veeranampalayam Panchayat and the 2nd defendant is her son while the 3rd defendant is their associate. With a view to obtain Patta for their supporters, they three attempted to evict the plaintiffs from the Suit Properties. Pursuantly, on 24th July, 2010, the defendants approached the Tahsildar, Kangayam, seeking to issue Patta for the Suit Properties. However, their request was declined. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants on 27th July, 2010 before the District Collector, Tiruppur, but no actions were taken due to the defendants’ political influence. On 6th September, 2010, the defendants and their men attempted to evict the plaintiffs from the Suit Properties and tried to settle their men on the Suit Properties. Hence, the Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the Suit Properties, from evicting the plaintiffs, and from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:

4. The 1st defendant filed a Written Statement, which was adopted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The Suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Each Patta holder ought to have been added as a party to the Suit, and separate court fees ought to have been paid for each and every Suit Property. Hence, the Suit is not maintainable under Order I Rule 8 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (‘CPC’ for short).

4.1. The Suit survey numbers were acquired by the Government to provide House Site Pattas to poor people who do not have a house. The plaintiffs fraudulently obtained Patta in their names. The 1st defendant, as Panchayat President, discovered this fraudulent act and took necessary action, after which the Government, upon due inquiry, found defects in the issuance of Patta. The plaintiffs never resided on the Suit Properties nor were in possession and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiffs never constructed thatched huts as alleged. Defendants 2 and 3 are in no way connected with the Suit. The defendants never entered or attempted to trespass into the Suit Properties. Further, the Government is a necessary party to the Suit. Defendants 2 and 3 are unnecessary parties