JUDGMENT C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. S.A.No.212 of 2001 had been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.644 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. 2. S.A.No.213 of 2001 had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.988 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. 3. By common judgment dated 21.02.1994, the learned District Munsif, Karur, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.988 of 1991. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 1990, who was the defendant in O.S.No.988 of 1991 had filed A.S.No.66 of 2000 and A.S.No.67 of 2000 before the Additional District Court, Karur. These appeals were made over to the Subordinate Court, Karur. By common judgment dated 18.10.2000, both the appeals were allowed necessitating the defendants in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.988 of 1991 to tile the above second appeals. O.S.No.644 of 1990:- 4. This suit had been filed by the plaintiff, Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, against three defendants, K.Palaniappan, Chockalingam and Balasubramanian, who were described as the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the School Building Committee, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk, seeking a judgment and decree restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit property and for costs of the suit. 5. The suit properties were described as Hec.1.60.5 ares in Iyan Dry S.F.No.1654 and Hec.2.58.0 in S.F.No.1655 together with all easementary rights, trees, pathway, etc., in Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the properties belonged to the plaintiff Idols. The Fit Person / Executive Officer of Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, had been appointed to manage and administer the plaintiff's temple situated in Koilpalayam, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. The HR & CE Deputy Commissioner, had advised the Fit Person to assume charge of the plaintiff's temple. 6. It is claimed that the defendants had unlawfully encroached on the suit properties. It had been stated that the title to the suit properties had been affirmed in an earlier suit in O.S.No.625 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. The revenue records, Chitta and Adangal also affirmed the ownership of the plaintiff Idols with respect to the suit properties. It had been stated that the title to the suit properties had been affirmed in an earlier suit in O.S.No.625 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. The revenue records, Chitta and Adangal also affirmed the ownership of the plaintiff Idols with respect to the suit properties. The defendants had put up a school building in the suit property without getting any permission from the plaintiff. The properties are under the care and custody of the HR & CE Board. It is under these circumstances, the suit had been filed restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit properties. 7. The plaint was subsequently amended and the relief was altered to grant a decree and judgment to remove the superstructure, which had been put up in the suit properties, failing which for removal of the superstructure through Court at the costs of the defendants. 8. The first defendant filed a written statement, stating that there was a Middle School in Puliyur Village, which was upgraded as Government High School and since space was not sufficient, the first defendant, as Ex-Village Munsif, convened a meeting of the local public and parents and from their contribution, put up a construction to accommodate the school. It had been stated that the school is functioning for a public purpose. It had been stated that they have given a representation for assignment of the properties at local value. It had also been stated that the defendants obtained lease from the cultivating tenant and put up a building. It had been stated that the suit should be dismissed. 9. The second defendant filed an additional written statement, stating that the construction was put up with a bona fide hope that it would be regularised. It had been stated that without seeking the reliefs of declaration and possession, mandatory injunction cannot be granted. It had been further stated that the suit should be dismissed. 10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. (2) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to." 11. Thereafter, the first issue was recast as follows: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction." O.S.No.988 of 1991:- 12. 10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. (2) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to." 11. Thereafter, the first issue was recast as follows: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction." O.S.No.988 of 1991:- 12. This suit was filed by the School Building Committee, Puliyur High School, represented by its President, K.Palaniappan, against the Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, seeking a judgment and decree restraining the defendant from interfering or trespassing into the suit properties and from disturbing the running of the High School and for costs of the suit. The suit properties were the land and building to an extent of Hec. 1.60.5 in S.F.No.1634 and Hec.2.58.0 in S.F.No.1655 in Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. 13. In the plaint, it had been stated that the plaintiff had put up a construction in the suit schedule properties by getting donation and from personal contribution. The School was shifted to the suit schedule property. It had been stated that the School is functioning. It had been further stated that the plaintiff had applied to the HR & CE Department, for selling the suit property to the School Committee. It had been stated that the defendant attempted forcible entry into the School. Under these circumstances, the suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction as stated above. 14. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it had been stated that even though the defendant had filed O.S.No.644 of 1990 and the Court had granted an order of interim injunction, violating the said interim order, the plaintiff had constructed School building. It had been stated that the defendant had filed contempt petition in the suit said. It was further stated that in view of same, the present suit had been filed. It had been stated that the defendant had filed O.S.No.289 of 1991, before the Subordinate Court, Karur for the relief of declaration of title. It had been stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief in the suit. The plaintiff was only a trespasser in the eye of law and cannot seek an order of injunction. It had been further stated that the suit should be dismissed. 15. It had been stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief in the suit. The plaintiff was only a trespasser in the eye of law and cannot seek an order of injunction. It had been further stated that the suit should be dismissed. 15. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Karur, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. (2) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to. The trial and judgment in both suits:- 16. Both the suits were taken up together and joint trial was conducted by the learned District Munsif, Karur. During trial, the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 1990 commenced evidence. Two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW-2. Ex-A1 and Ex-A17 were marked. Ex-A4 was the suit register extract in O.S.No.624 of 1985. Ex-A5, dated 29.12.1990 was the notice sent to the Chief Educational Officer, Trichy and Ex-A7, dated 13.07.1991 was a similar notice, sent to other officials of the Education Department. Ex-A11 was the true copy of the plaint in O.S.No.289 of 1991 and Ex-A17 was the copy of the written statement filed by the Chief Educational Officer. Ex-A13 was the copy of the written statement filed by K.Palaniappan in the said suit. Ex-A15, was the notice sent by Palaniappan, the first defendant in O.S.No.644 of 1990, to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, dated 19.10.1990. 17. On the side of the defendants, third defendant, Balasubramanian, was examined as DW-1. The defendants marked Ex-B1 to Ex-B12. Ex-B3 and Ex-B4 were the receipts for payment of electricity charges. Ex-B5 is the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. Ex-B9, dated 03.02.1993 was the letter sent by Palaniapppan to the Chief Educational Officer, Karur. Ex-B10 was the certified copy of the settlement registrar for pending T.S.No.1655, Puliyur Village, Karur. Ex-B11 is the certified copy of the settlement registrar for T.S.No.388, 1172 and 1654, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. During pendency of the suit, and Advocate Commissioner was also appointed. The report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were also marked as Ex-C1 and Ex-C2 and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex-C3 and Ex-C4. 18. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 21.02.1994, the learned District Munsif, first took for consideration the recasted issue No.1 in O.S.No.644 of 1990. The report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were also marked as Ex-C1 and Ex-C2 and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex-C3 and Ex-C4. 18. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 21.02.1994, the learned District Munsif, first took for consideration the recasted issue No.1 in O.S.No.644 of 1990. The learned District Munsif found that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.289 of 1991 before the Subordinate Court, Karur, which was also pending. He found that the plaintiff had not established that they were entitled for the relief of injunction against the defendants. He further observed that it would depend on the outcome of O.S.No.289 of 1991. He also held that it cannot be stated that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff Idols. He finally found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and consequently, dismissed O.S.No.644 of 1990 and decreed O.S.No.988 of 1991, however, granted injunction only till the disposal of O.S.No.289 of 1991. A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 2000:- 19. A.S.No.66 of 2000 had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and A.S.No.67 of 2000 had been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.988 of 1991. Both the appeals were taken up together by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. The learned Judge framed the following points for consideration: "1.Whether the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff's temple. 2. Whether, since the defendant had constructed building, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction." 20. The learned Judge re-examined the evidence on record and observed that the title of the plaintiff had been affirmed in earlier proceedings in O.S.No.625 of 1985 and also stated that the gift deed produced by the defendants were not a bona fide document and consequently answered the first point in favour of the plaintiff and held the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff. With respect to the second point, namely, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, the learned Judge found that the building had been constructed in violation of order of injunction granted by the Court. The learned Judge also found that the building was constructed on encroached land. The learned Judge finally held that plaintiff was entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction. The learned Judge also found that the building was constructed on encroached land. The learned Judge finally held that plaintiff was entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction. The learned Judge, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and decreed the suit O.S.No.644 of 1990 the dismissed the suit O.S.No.988 of 1991. S.A.Nos.212 and 213 of 2001:- 21. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants in O.S.No.644 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.988 of 1991 filed the present second appeals in S.A.No.212 of 2001 and S.A.No.213 of 2001 respectively. 22. At the time of admission of the second appeals, the following common substantial questions of law were framed: "Whether the lower appellate Court is right in law in reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court and right in law in granting a mandatory injunction in O.S.No.644 of 1990, particularly, when the suit O.S.No.289 of 1991 is pending on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur, seeking for a relief of declaration and for possession" (2)Whether the lower appellate Court is right in law in reversing the well-considered judgment and decree of the trial Court, particularly, when the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 1990 was not in possession of the suit property at any point of time, and when admittedly the decree in O.S.No.625 of 1985 has not been put into execution. 23. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.Saravanan, learned Counsel for Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned Counsel for Mr.N.Damodaran, learned Counsel for the respondents. 24. O.S.No.644 of 1990 had been filed by Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, The Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, against three defendants, Palaniappan, Chockalingam and Balasubramanian, who were the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the School Building Committee, Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk, seeking a judgment and decree of mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up in the suit property. It is stated that the construction had been put up pending the suit, which had originally been filed seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any building. An order of interim injunction was granted and the order was violated and disobeyed. The superstructure was put up in the suit property. 25. It is stated that the construction had been put up pending the suit, which had originally been filed seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any building. An order of interim injunction was granted and the order was violated and disobeyed. The superstructure was put up in the suit property. 25. O.S.No.988 of 1991 had been filed by the School Committee, represented by its President, K.Palaniappan, against Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, seeking a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or trespassing into the suit properties. The suit properties were the land and building measuring Hec. 1.60.5 in S.F.No.1634 and Hec.2.58.0 in S.F.No.1655 in Puliyur Village, Karur Taluk. 26. The two suits were taken up together for trial by the learned District Munsif, Karur, and by a common judgment dated 21.02.1994, O.S.No.644 of 1990 was dismissed and O.S.No.988 of 1991 was decreed but injunction was granted only till the disposal of O.S.No.289 of 1999, which was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. O.S.No.289 of 1991 had been filed by Idol Veereswaraswamy and Idol Mariamman, represented by its Fit Person, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Venkataramana Swamy Devasthanam, Thanthonimalai, seeking declaration of title and other reliefs over the suit properties. 27. The said judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Karur, was reversed in A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 2000, by the Additional District Judge- cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, by common judgment dated 18.10.2000. 28. The parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.644 of 1990. 29. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff Idols. This has been affirmed in earlier proceedings in O.S.No.625 of 1985. Ex-A4, is the suit register of O.S.No.625 of 1985. The substantial question of law, which had been framed was whether the lower appellate Court was right in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, particularly, when O.S.No.289 of 1991 was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. A further substantial question of law was raised with respect to the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. 30. PW-1, Sivasubramaniam, Executive Office of the plaintiff's temple and Thakkar of Mariamman Temple, had deposed that the suit properties were owned by the plaintiff Idol. A further substantial question of law was raised with respect to the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. 30. PW-1, Sivasubramaniam, Executive Office of the plaintiff's temple and Thakkar of Mariamman Temple, had deposed that the suit properties were owned by the plaintiff Idol. Since the defendants attempted to put up a building, the suit in O.S.No.644 of 1990 had been filed. An interim injunction was also granted. Ex-A1, Ex-A2 and Ex-A3 are the acknowledgment cards for the injunction order to have been served on the defendants. There was an earlier suit in O.S.No.625 of 1985, wherein, the title to the suit properties had been upheld. Even at that time, permanent injunction had been obtained and Ex-A4 had been produced with respect to the same. A notice had been issued to the Chief Educational Officer in Ex-A5. A subsequent suit seeking declaration of title had also been filed in O.S.No.289 of 1991 and the copy of the plaint had been produced as Ex-A11. 31. On the side of the defendants, the third defendant was examined as DW-1. According to the said witness, the building was constructed with donations received from the public. He further stated that S.No.1655 was owned by Periyasamy Pillai and the suit properties was gifted to the Chief Educational Officer by Ammayappa Gounder and Subramanian Gounder. Those documents were produced as Ex-B1 and Ex-B2. The receipts for payment of electricity charges, were produced as Ex-B3. The patta proceedings were marked as Ex-B8. 32. In the written statement in O.S.No.644 of 1990, the defendant had been stated as follows: "In any event, the suit properties are in the enjoyment of the cultivating tenant from who the defendants have obtained lease and put up the building. So in any event, the suit is not maintainable without adding cultivating tenant as party-defendant." 33. The above extract naturally means that the defendants have put up a building, after, according to them, they obtained lease from the cultivating tenant in the suit properties. It therefore, clear that the defendants have put up the School building in a property over which they cannot claim title. They have not produced the lease deed from the cultivating tenant to show that their bona fide. They have also not named the cultivating tenant. The Advocate Commissioner had inspected the building on 11.12.1990 and had filed his report. It therefore, clear that the defendants have put up the School building in a property over which they cannot claim title. They have not produced the lease deed from the cultivating tenant to show that their bona fide. They have also not named the cultivating tenant. The Advocate Commissioner had inspected the building on 11.12.1990 and had filed his report. In the said report, he had mentioned that in suit properties, there was an asbestos sheet roofing which covered 5 rooms. Construction materials were put up in the suit properties. 34. The building was constructed only pending O.S.No.644 of 1990 and in violation of the interim order. Putting up the said construction, necessitated filing an amendment petition to the relief and amendment seeking mandatory injunction to pull down the superstructure. It is clear that the building had put up disobeying the order of the injunction granted by a competent Court. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a number of students are studying in the school. It is also seen that the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.289 of 1991. The defendant had constructed the building on encroached lands. 35. In the case of National Institute of Medical Science University, Rajasthan and another vs State of Rajasthan and Others, 2017 SCC Online(SC) 1297, the Honourable Supreme Court had considered a case with strikingly similar facts as the instant case. The facts in that case had been related in the following paragraphs: "14. The petitioner is a University and presumably it is a University of some repute and responsibility. It made an application for allotment of land in village Jugalpur, Tehsil Amer in District Jaipur to the District Collector of Jaipur on 10th May 2002. However, the application for allotment did not include Khasra No. 526 with which we are concerned. NIMS apparently did not receive any reply to the application. 15. For reasons that are not quite clear, NIMS sent a letter to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan on 28thFebruary 2005 to the effect that it had allegedly encroached upon Khasra No. 526. Having denied the allegation, NIMS then sought allotment of that Khasra being No. 526 Rakba 14.44 hectare. 16. According to NIMS, it made several subsequent representations for allotment of Khasra No. 526 but received no reply from any of the authorities for as long as 10 years. Having denied the allegation, NIMS then sought allotment of that Khasra being No. 526 Rakba 14.44 hectare. 16. According to NIMS, it made several subsequent representations for allotment of Khasra No. 526 but received no reply from any of the authorities for as long as 10 years. During this period, NIMS presumed that the silence of the State Government meant that it had no objection to the allotment. Accordingly, it claimed to have purchased several parcels of land including Khasra No. 526 from various Khatedars and claimed that demarcation of the land was also carried out by the Revenue authorities. On the presumption that there was no objection to the allotment of the land, NIMS made massive construction on Khasra No. 526. 17. Eventually and since no favourable action was taken on the representations made, NIMS filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2012 in the High Court praying that directions may be issued in its favour for allotment of land including Khasra No. 526 for its University. The writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 1st November 2012. 18. Around that time, NIMS was issued a notice dated 13th February 2012 under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 in respect of the alleged encroachments on Khasra No. 526. 19. Feeling aggrieved by the notice, NIMS preferred Appeal No. 37 of 2012 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. After hearing NIMS, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 12th October 2012. This led NIMS to prefer S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16836 of 2012 in the High Court. This writ petition was clubbed along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2012 and both were dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 1st November 2012. 20. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of both the writ petitions, NIMS preferred special appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court and these were registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 1455-1456 of 2012. Both the appeals were heard by the Division Bench and dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 26th November 2012." 36. 20. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of both the writ petitions, NIMS preferred special appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court and these were registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 1455-1456 of 2012. Both the appeals were heard by the Division Bench and dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 26th November 2012." 36. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the National Institute of Medical Science University, Rajasthan, seeking assignment of encroached lands. Before the Division Bench, it was also contended that they had put up massive constructions and no useful purpose would be served by demolishing the said constructions. However, the Division Bench rejected that contention and also held that if steps are not taken to remove the encroachment, it would only encourage others to encroach upon lands and seek regularisation of illegal construction made thereon. The Honourable Supreme Court, finally, held as follows: "42. Keeping in mind the view expressed by this Court in these and other decisions, we also direct the demolition of the unauthorized construction by or on behalf of NIMS on Khasra No. 526. The demolition should be carried out by the Jaipur Development Authority with the assistance of the State Government and the Collector of Jaipur District on or before 30th November, 2017. The Director General of Police of Rajasthan is directed to render all necessary assistance in the process of demolition. The cost of demolition and removal of rubble etc. will be at the expense of NIMS. Any pending application made by NIMS for compounding the unauthorized construction or regularizing it stands superseded in view of our decision." 37. In the present case, the appellant had constructed building in temple property by openly encroaching upon the temple land. They cannot claim ignorance and plead innocence and seek indulgence from this Court. They are encroachers and consequently, I hold that the ratio laid down in the above judgment would directly apply to the facts of the present case. It is clear that the defendants had deliberately encroached and constructed the building in violation of the injunction order of the Competent Court. 38. They are encroachers and consequently, I hold that the ratio laid down in the above judgment would directly apply to the facts of the present case. It is clear that the defendants had deliberately encroached and constructed the building in violation of the injunction order of the Competent Court. 38. In view of the above, I hold that the substantial questions of law are answered that the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and was also right in granting mandatory injunction, even though O.S.No.289 of 1991 was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. I further hold that the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Courr, since the possession of the defendant was that of an encroacher, cannot be granted any relief by a Court of law. 39. In view of the above facts, these second appeals in S.A.No.212 of 2001 and S.A.No.213 of 2001 are both dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000, in A.S.Nos.66 and 67 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur is upheld and confirmed. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.644 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur, is decreed and the suit in O.S.No.988 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur, is dismissed.