JUDGMENT

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.225 of

2013, by the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and in A.S.No.5 of 2019, by the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.225 of

2013, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the bore-well and room situated in the vacant site on the western side of the suit property; directing the defendants 3 and 4 to disconnect the electricity connection given to the said bore-well; directing the first defendant to remove the newly dug bore-well abetting east-west wall of the Temple; from restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from giving electricity connection for newly dug bore-well; from restraining the first defendant from using in any way the newly dug bore-well and from restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is Sangaiya Temple and the said Temple has vacant land around the Temple and it is classified as 'Vaikaal Poramboke'. The plaintiff's ancestors, in the year 1958, had constructed the said Temple from their own earning and also constructed a compound wall and treating the same as a family deity and performing pooja works in the said Temple. The plaintiff has been issued 'B' memo by the revenue authorities since from 1995. The plaintiff has purchased Survey Nos.732/2, 732/1A and 732/1C from one S.N.Govindaraj by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 24.09.2008 and he has enjoyed the property along with the property measuring an extent of 5 ares attached to the suit property, which was left out by the said S.N.Govindaraj. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property other than the Temple property and has dug a bore-well at the north-east corner of the Temple and obtained an electricity connection. In the meanwhile, the first defendant had dug a new bore-well before 1-1/2 years on the western side of the suit property and the same was objected to by the plaintiff. The first defendant assured him that he would remove the bore-well at an early point of time, but still the first defendant has not removed the same. Further, on 11.12.2013, the first defendant dug another bore-well abetting the east-west of the Temple wall, though it was also objected to by the plaintiff. The first defendant had attempted to get electricity connection from the defendants 3 and 4. If the bore-wells are going to be run, there are possibility of scarcity of water and may not be able to maintain 'Annathanam'. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the above stated relief.

4. The first defendant has filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that these bore-wells are dug by the first defendant only to distribute drinking water for the Village people. There are not only suit Temple, but also another Temple belonging to the Village as well as the Pandaram Community, apart from the Alagarsamy Temple worshipped by one Pitchai Servai. There is a pathway leading to the crematorium and a hand pipe was also put up before 40 years ago. There is an 'Oorani' in the suit property. The plaintiff's case is that it is his own lands are all denied as false and the suit property is classified as poramboke land. Survey Nos.732/1, 732/1A and 732/1C are purchased by the plaintiff, has to be proved by him. The said S.N.Govindarajan left the suit property for him are also false and further submitted that the plaintiff has not dug a bore-well in the north-east corner for his usage and further submitted that before 45 years and two years earlier, bore-wells were dug by the Panchayat and the water has been distributed to the Village people, which is having a population of 1300 and also for people of Endapuli Panchayat