JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit for bare injunction is the subject matter of the Second Appeal. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court. The brief facts necessary for appreciating the issue on hand is as follows.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit properties were comprised in S.No.1104/3 measuring 0.08.5 hectares and S.No.1104/6 measuring 0.680 hectares in Ukkram A Village, Sathyamangalam. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are Government Poramboku lands. One Thimma Nayakar son of Ranga Nayakar had encroached into the land in S.No.1104/6 and was cultivating the same. He had been paying B-memo charges every year. He left the village as he was unable to carry on cultivation.

3. The plaintiff's father was originally enjoying the land comprised in S.No.1104/3 and thereafter stopped cultivation. The plaintiff took both these lands and started cultivating the same. He was also paying B-memo charges in respect of these lands. Thereafter, the name of Thimma Nayakar was removed and the plaintiff's name was substituted in the B-memo. The plaintiff would further submit that he had been drawing water from his patta lands to cultivate these lands.

4. On account of drought conditions, the Government had waived payment of land tax. Therefore, the plaintiff did not pay the land tax for this period. The 1st defendant is the plaintiff's brother, the 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 4. The 4th defendant is the sister of the plaintiff.

5.On 01.09.2004, on the instigation of the other defendants the

1st defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the property. Though this attempt was successfully prevented, however another attempt was made on 05.09.2004 and this was also prevented. However, the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and therefore left with no other alternative the plaintiff had come forward with the suit.

6. The 1st defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contending that they had no dispute with reference to the properties comprised in S.No.1104/3 and that they were joining issue only with reference to the lands comprised in S.No.1104/6. It was also their case that the plaintiff has come to the Court with unclean hands as he has suppressed material facts. Thimma Nayakar, who is referred to in the plaint is none other than the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has deliberately used a wrong name for creating a non existent right. 7. The 1st defendant would contend that it is he who is in possession of the suit properties and the plaintiff was never in possession of the same. He would also contend that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the Government has not been made a party though the suit property is a Government Poramboku land. This written statement has been adopted by defendants 2 to 4.

8.The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1, one Saminathan as P.W.2 besides examining the Village Administrative Officer, an Official from the Tahsildar Office, Sathyamangalam as well as the Sanitary Officer, Sathyamangalam Municipality as P.W.3 to P.W.6. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant had examined himself as D.W.1. The 3rd defendant, mother as D.W.2. Rangasamy, the father as D.W.3 and Thimma Nayakar as D.W.4. The defendants had marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5. An Advocate Commissioner had been appointed to note down the physical features and his Report and Sketch has been marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. Through the witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.9 were marked.

9.The learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam, on going through the evidence both oral and documentary had held that given name of the 1st defendant was Thimma Naya