The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction on the promise that they are in possession and enjoyment of the Government Property. Though originally impleaded three defendants alone as parties thereafter, the revenue official viz., Tahsildar, Uthangarai, was arrayed as the fourth defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first appeal has been preferred by the defendants. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.
2.At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following Substantial Question of Law is framed:
Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in finding that the plaintiffs have been evicted from the suit property in the absence of any proceedings under Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (3 of 1950)?
3.It appears from the pleadings, earlier a suit in O.S.No.661 of 1982 has been filed on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, which has been transferred to the newly constructed Court of the District Munsif, Harur and renumbered as O.S.No.318 of 1984 and the same has been subsequently dismissed for default on 22.06.1985 and during that time, there was an order of interim injunction in their favour.
4.The first Appelate Court held that the plaintiffs have not proved their possession, as seen from the documents including adangal coupled with the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, who finds no structure in the suit property. It is further held that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property in obtaining an order of injunction earlier. It is settled position that once the suit got dismissed, the interim orders also would go.
5.Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that based on the statements made by the DW1 to DW3, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief sought for. The name of plaintiffs 1 and 2 are found in adangal entries for Fasli 1392.
6.This Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. Admittedly, the appellants filed the suit earlier and subsequently, the same was dismsised for default and the same is not restored till date. Therefore the subsequent suit is not maintainable and that too against the Revenue Official. The lower Appellate Court on facts found that on the date of filing the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs did not prove their possession. To come to the such conclusion, based on the records, adangal and commissioner's report found no superstructure in the suit property.
7.The first Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that once the suit is dismissed for default, the interim order granted would automatically set vanished. Similarly, assignment made in favour of the Co-opeartive Society can never be subject matter of the suit and the Co-operative Society is also not made as a party.
8.When once the finding has been given by a lower Appellate Court, which is a final Court of fact with regard to the question of possession on the date of filing of the suit, this Court cannot re-appreciate it in exercise of powers invoking Section 100 of C.P.C.
9.In the result, the Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Consequenly, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.