Karuppasamy vs Tenkasi Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 1739 Mad

                                                                              S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 27.01.2021

                                                    CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                            S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021


                   Karuppasamy                                 .. Appellant / Plaintiff


                                                   Vs.


                   Tenkasi Municipality,
                   through its Commissioner,
                   office of the Tenkasi Municipality,
                   Tenkasi Kuspa,
                   Tenkasi Taluk                               ... Respondent / defendant


                   Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment

                   and Decree passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast

                   Track Court), Tenkasi, dated 14.08.2019 made in A.S.No.105 of 2018

                   confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.5 of 2012, dated

                   10.07.2018, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.


                                For Appellant      : Mr.D. Srinivasa Ragavan



                     1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                               S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021



                                                JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No. 5 of 2012 has come up with this

appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit for damages.

2. The suit was filed seeking damages of Rs.5,00,000/-

contending that the Municipality had demolished the construction put up

by the plaintiff in his property without issuing any notice under the Tamil

Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The suit was resisted by the

defendant / Municipality contending that the proper notices were issued

and they were served on the mother of the plaintiff. It was also contention

of the Municipality that the offending construction was removed, as it was

on the Municipality land.

3. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and one

Sudalaiyandi examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the

side of the defendants, Ex.D1 was marked and no one was examined.

4. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the trial

Court found that the relevant notices were served on the mother of the

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021

plaintiff. The plaintiff himself had admitted that notices were served on

his mother, who is a adult member of the family. The trial Court has also

found that the plaintiff has not established his case that the offending

construction was within the property purchased by him under Ex.A3 - sale

deed. On the above conclusions, the trial Judge dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.105 of 2018 on the

file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court),

Tenkasi. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, who heard

the appeal, upon reconsideration of the evidence an agreed with dismissal

of the suit and hence, the appellant / plaintiff has filed the present Second

appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently

contended that the Courts below were not right in dismissing the suit, as

the municipality issued notices u/s. 216 of the Tamil Nadu District

Municipalities Act, 1920 only stating that the construction has been put up

without approval. He would also submit that it was not the claim of the

Municipality, at the time when the notices were issued, that the

construction was put up in the municipal land. He would also contend that

the Courts below had erroneously presumed that the construction was put

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021

up in Municipal land.

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant.

7. Merely because the Municipality did not claim, in the

notices issued, that the construction was on Municipal land, I do not think

such presumption has been made by the Courts below. As the plaintiff

has filed the suit for damages contending that the construction was within

his property and that it was not a fresh construction but was only

alteration of the existing construction, it is for him to prove his pleadings.

Both the Courts below have adverted to the evidence of the plaintiff in full

and they concluded that the plaintiff had not established that offending

construction was put up within the property purchased by him under

Ex.A3 sale deed. Despite the best efforts, the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant is unable to demonstrate that the factual findings of the

Courts below are perverse. He is unable to point out any questions of law,

much less a substantial question of law in this appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021

8. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed without being

admitted. No costs.

27.01.2021 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no trp

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi

2. The file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,

trp

S.A (MD) No.43 of 2021

27.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in