In land disputes, possession and legal title must be clearly established, and unilateral attempts to dispossess based on communal claims without proper justification are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

These Second Appeals have been filed to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos.30 & 35 of 2011 dated 21.12.2011 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam, modifying and reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.98 of 2010 and O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam dated 30.06.2011.

2. Heard Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for R1 and Dr.S.Suriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for R2 to R5 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The appellants in both the appeals are the defendants in both the suits against whom the same plaintiff has filed two suits, one for permanent injunction and the other for damages. The trial Court has decreed the suit which is sought for permanent injunction and dismissed the suit which is sought for compensation by passing a common judgment.

4. On the appeals filed by the defendants, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the relief granting permanent injunction and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. So far as the other relief of compensation is concerned, the First Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decreed it to an extent of awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The short facts pleaded in the plaint in O.S.No.98 of 2010 are as follows:

The plaintiff has purchased the suit property vide two registered sale deeds dated 06.01.2004 and 11.03.2004. The plaintiff took possession of the property and repaired and reconstructed the fences and cultivated banana, coconut, etc and he dug a bore well in the suit property. A fish pond was dugged up and fingerlings were let into the pond. The sub-division was also effected in his name. After the plaintiff has purchased the property, the defendant induced some persons to claim the piece of land as 'Mayanam' (Graveyard). But, on enquiry the plaintiff confirmed that it is false. By using his high office, the defendant had initiated some action against the plaintiff on the allegation that he is in occupation of the Graveyard. On 26.10.2007 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and other Revenue Officials have admittedly indulged in vandalism and made criminal trespass into the property by breaking open the gate and destroyed the crops grown there. Notice was given to the President of Panchayat by the plaintiff's advocate on 29.10.2007 for illegal and unlawful acts of the Revenue Officers.

5.1. The defendant has sent a reply and that itself would show that the defendant panchayat has got no right or possession in the suit property. The property was assessed as a dry land and duly possessed, enjoyed and maintained by the plaintiff. The 'Mayanam' is actually situated in land in R.S.Nos.29/14, 67/1, 69/9, 75/5, 88/6, 100/10 & 118/3. The suit property is neither a communal land nor classified as Poromboke. The plaintiff has taken steps to file a suit for damages for the devastation caused by vandalism committed by Revenue Divisional Officer and other officials and an FIR came to registered against the offenders. The defendant is motivated against the plaintiff and he is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and he also attempted to prevent the plaintiff from repairing and reconstructing his fences. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

6. On the very same cause of action, the plaintiff has filed another suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009 for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-. In a joint trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined a