IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA S.A.No.1597 of 2011

1.The Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, WRO., R.C. Sec.No.1, Karur.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, WRO., R.C. Section, Kulithalai, Trichy District.

3.The Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, WRO., R.C.Section, Trichy.

... Appellants / Defendants Vs.

V.S.Arumugam ... Respondent / Plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2005 made in A.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in so far as reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2004 made in O.S.No.39 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodumudi.

For Appellants : Dr.S.Suriya, AGP For Respondent : Mr.N.Umapathi

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2005 made in A.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in so far as reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2004 made in O.S.No.39 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodumudi.

2. Heard Dr.S.Suriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The brief facts of the plaint runs as under:

The suit property is a poromboke land situated at S.F.No.671 of Kodumudi Village. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant, measuring 16 feet on the south, 35 1/2 feet on the north south on the east 70 feet east west on the north and 17 1/2 feet on the north south on the west which is marked as 'ABCDEF' in the plaint plan. The property situated at the north of central water board office was occupied by the plaintiff and he put up a bunk shop initially. Thereafter, the plaintiff leveled the uneven vacant sites situated on the south of Pillayar Koil and the vacant site situated on the south of bunk shop upto A.G. portion, the plaintiff erected a tea shop and on the west of the bunk shop, he put up a thatched shed for residential purpose and a front yard to be cattles, store manure etc. Hence, the entire suit property has been enjoyed by the plaintiff as a tenant by paying the lease amount to the defendants every year. The electricity connection has been given to the said property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was paying licence fees to the Kodumudi Town Panchayat for having the tea shop. He has been paying the lease amount also regularly.

3.1. On 13.05.2002, the first defendant came to the suit property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2002. Since the defendants tried to vacate the plaintiff illegally, the plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and to protect his peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit property.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants are as under:

It is false to state that the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the suit property for more than 35 years. The plaintiff has trespassed the property. The plaintiff should have applied for a license for temporary enjoyment before the competent authority. The plaintiff cannot consider himself as a tenant and there is no subsisting lease in his favour. The license was actually granted to one R.Murugavel, for an extent of 10' x 10' feet (100 Sq.ft) in the year 1986 to 1987. The plaintiff has encroached the land adjacent to the office of the Central Water Commission. The Executive Engineer has requested the plaintiff to vacate the land, but the plaintiff did not heed to his request. As the plaintiff was creating nuisance to the general public, they have also started to make complaint against the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff cannot occupy the public property and claim that he has got legal