JUDGMENT

The second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.62 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

2.The respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.

62 of 2005 for declaration of their title to the suit property and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to remove a T.V. room constructed by the second defendant and for removal of a well that had been dug by the third defendant in the suit.

3.The appellant/second defendant is the local body, namely, Panchayat of Kulasekarapattinam. The third defendant is the Commissioner of Udangudi Panchayat Union. The fourth defendant is the Block Development Officer and the fifth defendant is the State represented by the District Collector.

4.The suit property is described as an extent of 5 7/8 cents (72 ft east-west x 35 ft. north-south) out of a larger extent in Natham Survey No.239 in Kulasekarapattinam Village within the Udangudi Sub Registration District. The property is described as land and thatched house bearing Door No.3A within Kulasekarapattinam Town Panchayat.

5.The plaintiffs stated in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 by way of registered sale deed dated 22.06.1981 from one Pattani, son of Kovilpillai for a valid consideration and that the property was fenced on all sides at the time when the property was purchased. It is also stated that the thatched house bearing Door No.3A was there in the suit property and that the first plaintiff was paying kist and tax for the building. Stating that their father Thiru.Yacob died on 27.12.1994 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives, the plaintiffs claimed absolute title to the suit property. It is also admitted in the plaint that the thatched house was destroyed and that the property was kept as a vacant land with boundary stones on all sides. They contended that the Udai trees grown in the suit property were periodically cut and removed by the plaintiffs.

6.It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have no semblance of right over the property and that the second defendant at the instance of first defendant put up a T.V. room in a small portion of suit property without the permission of the plaintiffs in October, 2002. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that the third defendant, during May, 2003 dug a well without the permission of the plaintiffs. Stating that the construction of T.V. room and digging of well by defendants 2 and 3 respectively are illegal, the plaintiffs contended that the illegal construction by encroaching into the property of plaintiffs should be removed. It was also alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 are trying to remove the trees standing in the other part of the property and that therefore, the defendants should be restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. It was on this background, the suit came to be filed for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up construction or by other manner. As stated earlier, the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the T.V. room and the well were the consequential reliefs.

7.The suit was contested by the second defendant alone. It appears that other defendants jointly endorsed the written statement filed by the second defendant. In the written statement, it was contended by the second defendant that the suit property measuring an extent of 0.01.69 ares in Survey No.256/40 belong to an organisation by name Mutharamman F.R.C. Kovil Dussehra Kuzhu. It is further stated that the second defendant with the permission of the said Dussehra Kuzhu constructed a T.V. room under Jawahar Employment Scheme. It is also stated that the well was also dug by the third defendant. Since the