AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Thangavel, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants as revision petitioners against the order and
decretal order dated 24.9.1998 and made in I.A.No.756 of 1998 in O.S.No.238 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Srivilliputhur.
The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The respondents herein as plaintiffs have filed a suit for
permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners who are the defendants before the trial Court and their men from interfering in any manner
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the respondents herein. To get the above said relief, the first
respondent herein has stated that the buildings bearing door Nos.1-B/5 or 1-A/5 were constructed by Muthiah konar, the brother of Subbiah
Konar, who is the father of the first respondent herein, before 45 years and the above said buildings were handed over to Subbiah Konar by
Muthiah Konar for managing the school, run in one of the buildings. The other building is used for residential purposes by the respondents herein,
according to the respondents herein. The school is being run in the thatched shed owned by Krishnan Temple, Kaliamman Temple and Pilliar
Temple in village poromboke in the said village. According to the revision petitioners, the properties described in the plaint belonged to yadava
community and a school was constructed with the funds raised from the said community and was run on behalf of the said community. The vacant
site in the plaint schedule properties, according to the revision petitioners, has been used for tethering cattle and also to celebrate festivals during
festival season. All the buildings in the plaint schedule properties were demolished and with the funds of yadava community, stone walls were
erected to a height of two feet with one layer of brick wall for the school building. There is no residential building as claimed by the respondents
herein, and the respondents herein are also not in possession of the above said residential building. To find out the above said position, the revision
petitioners as petitioners have filed a petition for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule properties and to submit
a report with plan.
The respondents herein, as respondents before the lower court, have resisted the claim made by the revision petitioners on the following
grounds:- The school building and the residential building bearing door Nos.1-B/5 and 1-A/5 were constructed by Muthiah Konar, the brother of
Subbiah Konar, who is the father of the first respondent herein before 45 years. The management of the school was entrusted to Subbiah Konar
and after him the said management was carried on by the first respondent herein. Tax for the above said buildings are paid by the respondents
herein and are in occupation of the house bearing door No.1-A/5. The stone wall construction as well as the brick work construction were done
only by the respondents herein and not by the revision petitioners. The advocate-commissioner cannot be appointed to inspect the plaint schedule
properties and to submit a report with plan to prove as to who is in possession of the plaint schedule properties. It is on these grounds, the
respondents herein have sought for dismissal of the petition.
After considering the material evidence available on record, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that advocate-commissioner cannot be
appointed to collect evidence to prove as to who is in possession of the plaint schedule properties and the same has to be proved by letting oral or
documentary evidence. On these grounds, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated
24.9.1998 and made in I.A.No.756 of 1998 in O.S.No.238 of 1997, the petitioners/defendants as revision petitioners have come forward with
this Civil Revision Petition.
The fact remains that the respondents herein as plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioners who are
defendants before the trial Court to restrain the revision petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule properties bearing door Nos.1-A/5 and 1-B/5. The buildings bearing the above said door numbers were constructed by one Muthiah
Konar for running a school and for using one building for residential purpose and the said properties were entrusted to his brother Subbiah Konar,
who is the father of the first respondent herein, to run the management of the school and for residential purposes. It is also the case of the
respondents herein that the school building was demolished due to its dilapidated condition and the school is being run in temple shed belonging to
the temples in the village and the residential building is used for residential purposes by the respondents herein. While the respondents herein
claimed that the respondents herein have constructed stone wall to a height of two feet with one layer of brick wall for the school building, the
revision petitioners herein claimed that they have constructed the above said walls. There is a description in the copy of the plaint furnished to this
Court that the said walls were constructed to the existing stage by the community people belonging to the defendants'' community.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein contends that the above said description in the copy of the plaint furnished to this
Court may not be correct as such description is not available in the certified copy of the decretal order given to the respondents herein. This Court
is not inclined to go into the correctness or genuineness of such description in the plaint schedule properties given in the plaint at this stage. It is for
the trial Court to decide that issue at the time of trial. But there is no dispute between both parties that the building in which school was run was
demolished due to its dilapidated condition and a new construction has been started in that place. It is for the parties laying rival claims to establish
as to who has put up such construction in the plaint schedule properties, at the time of trial before the trial Court.
While the revision petitioners has specifically pleaded in the pleadings in the affidavit that there is no residential house in the plaint schedule
properties, the respondents herein in paragraph 6 of their counter have denied that the averment made by the revision petitioners that there is no
residential building in existence in the plaint schedule properties, is not correct. It will otherwise mean that it is the case of the respondents herein
that the residential building in the plaint schedule properties is in existence in which the respondents herein are said to be living.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein has brought to the notice of this Court about the latter portion of paragraph 6 of the
counter filed before the trial Court in this application wherein the respondents herein have specifically admitted that the buildings in the plaint
schedule properties were demolished due to its age and had made arrangements for construction of new buildings. It is also averred that foundation
stone was laid in the above said place. Based on the averments made in the counter in latter part of paragraph 6 of the counter, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that the buildings in the plaint schedule properties were admittedly demolished. It will go to mean that the
residential building which is one of the two buildings in existence in the plaint schedule properties should also have been demolished and it could not
have been in existence at the time of filing the petition for appointment of advocate commissioner. It will otherwise mean that it is admitted by the
respondents herein in the pleadings in the counter that the buildings including the residential building described in the plaint schedule were also
demolished and there should be no buildings in existence as alleged by the revision petitioners in their affidavit.
In the light of the said averments this Court holds that there could not have been any building in existence in the plaint schedule properties. While
there is no existing building in the plaint schedule properties, and stone walls to a height of two feet and one layer of brick wall alone are in
existence in the plaint schedule properties, no useful purpose will be served by appointing an advocate-commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule
properties and to submit report with plan as to who is in possession of the said properties. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the party who
is claiming to be in possession of the demised properties should prove their case by producing oral and documentary evidence and not by
collecting evidence through advocate-commissioner. In view of the said position, this Court finds no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the
order passed by the Court below is confirmed taking into consideration of the demolition of the buildings in the plaint schedule properties due to its
dilapidated condition pleaded in the counter filed by the respondents herein.
In fine, the order and decretal order passed by the trial Court are confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition, the petition in C.M.P.No.18757 of 1998 is closed as unnecessary.