J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 5, 2020 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2019 by the 'Sub Court, Tiruvarur' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for brevity], confirming the Judgment and Decree dated October 24, 2017 passed in O.S.No.102 of 2015 by the ‘District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for brevity].

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

Plaintiff's Case:

3. The Suit Property is a tiled shop located in Vijayapuram, Thiruvarur, with a total extent of 680 sq. ft., comprising 50 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 830/2, 54 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 830/3, 282 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 1000, and 294 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 1001. The plaintiff – Temple rented out the same to one G.Sabapathi Chettiar and his son – S.Sivakumar. They were remitting the rent duly and regularly but later defaulted. As the plaintiff attempted to recover the rent due as well as the possession of the Suit Property, over the night of July 4, 2015, the defendant, who has no right or interest in the Suit Property, demolished the Suit tiled shop. The next day i.e., on July 5, 2015, the defendant attempted to erect a new construction thereupon, but the same was prevented by the plaintiff’s intervention. Purportedly, the defendant has entered into some transaction in respect of Suit Property with the said G.Sabapathi Chettiar and his son - S.Sivakumar, who are mere tenants. Whatever be the transaction, it is unlawful. The defendant is a trespasser. The defendant has no right over the Suit Property and he cannot put any construction thereupon. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may at any time cause mischief in the Suit Property. Reserving its right to file a separate Suit for eviction of the defendant, the plaintiff has filed this Suit for permanent injunction against the defendant not to carry out any construction in the Suit Property, costs and other reliefs.

Defendant's case:

4. The defendant filed Written Statement whereby he denies the plaint averments except those specifically admitted therein. Further, it is averred therein that the total extent of 294 sq. ft. in Town Survey No.1001 originally belonged to one Kathija Bibi, who under four Settlement Deeds conveyed the it entirely to her sons, daughters and grandchildren between the years 1955 and 1960. In turn, the settlees executed Sale Deeds for consideration in favour of Sabapathi Chettiar, Ramasamy Chettiar and Nadarajan Chettiar between the years 1955 and 1960. Thereafter, vide a Family Partition Deed dated September 14, 1980, the entire extent of 294 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 1001 was allotted to G.Sabapathi Chettiar as ‘A’ schedule property therein. After passing of G.Sabapathi Chettiar, his two sons and wife partitioned their properties vide registered Partition Deed February 14, 1991, whereby the entire extent of Town Survey No. 1001 was allotted to one of G.Sabapathi Chettiar’s son viz., S.Ganesan as Item No. 1 of ‘B’ schedule therein. The said S.Ganesan sold the same to one P.R.M.Duraikannu. The defendant purchased for value the entire extent of Town Survey No. 1001 along with the superstructure thereupon in the year 1991 from P.R.M.Duraikannu vide Sale Deed dated July 12, 1999, after verifying the title deeds. The defendant is not aware of the other Suit survey numbers and they are not in his possession. After purchase, while he was renovating and repairing the superstructure in Town Survey No.1001, without any pre-suit notice the plaintiff has filed this Suit. The town survey register will not confer title to the plaintiff. The defendant denies that he completely demolished the superstructure in Town Survey No. 1001 on July 4, 2015 and attempted to construct a new one thereupon the next day. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the Suit.

Trial Court:

5. At trial, one Rajendran, Executive Officer of the plaintiff -Temple was examined as P.W.1