The court affirmed that encroachment on public property negates claims of ownership and that plaintiffs must approach courts with transparent evidence.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2013 passed in A.S. No. 31 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2012 passed in O.S. No. 10 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.

2. The Plaintiff in the suit is the Appellant in this Appeal. He had filed the suit against the Respondent/first Defendant and one other Ravi @ Rajagopalan for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming under them from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and not to evict the Plaintiff from the suit property.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he had purchased suit scheduled property by a registered Sale Deed dated 10.05.2000 and from then on, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that he had constructed a roofed house after getting appropriate approval from the authorities concerned and living there. He also claimed that Electricity Service connection was provided to the building constructed by him and he is enjoying the electricity amenity as well. Further, the Plaintiff has mortgaged the property in question with Tamilnadu Electricity Employees Co-operative Society for construction of the building on 11.10.2000 and based on the loan given to him, he had constructed the roofed RCC building. While so, on 09.12.2002, the Respondent/first Defendant issued a notice calling upon the Plaintiff to remove the building constructed by him, failing which it will be removed at the cost of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued a reply notice on 18.12.2002. In spite of the reply sent, the officials attached to the first Defendant Town Panchayat are attempting to dispossess the Plaintiff and therefore, he had filed the suit for a bare injunction.

4. On notice, the Defendants filed written statement repudiating the plaint averments. According to the first Defendant, on 06.04.1995, a gift deed was given and registered by the Plaintiff himself in favour of the first Defendant Panchayat. The gift deed was acted upon and a road was laid in the land in Survey No.93/1A1A and the public road was vested with the first Defendant for its maintenance. Subsequently, on 17.04.1995, the Plaintiff made another gift deed to the first Defendant Panchayat and the land covered thereof have been taken possession of by the first Defendant. The lands gifted are being utilised for laying of a road or public park. After gifting the land, the Plaintiff is attempting to alienate those lands, which cannot be permitted. When once gift is given, the land is vested with the first Defendant and the Plaintiff cannot claim ownership of those lands. After giving the land as a gift, the Plaintiff has encroached a part of the public park which is illegal. The Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, the first Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The second Defendant filed written statement stating that he is a Ward Councillor. That the Plaintiff had encroached the land vested with the first Defendant, meant to be used as park. That the said land forming part of the larger extent of lands was originally owned by one Kaliyamurthy and Alagammai. The said owners while laying out the said land as house site had executed gift deed in respect of certain extent of lands in favour of the first Defendant. That the suit property forms part of the lands gifted to the first Defendant. That this Defendant received complaints from the general public regarding the encroachment made by the Plaint