1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.888 of 2011 Noohukannu ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Kaliyal Village, Kaliyal, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6462 of 2008. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents or any person claiming under then from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.2532/2 in Kaliyal Village, Kanyakumari District having an extent of 1 acre and 18 ½ cents by the petitioner. For Appellant : Mrs.J.Anandhavalli For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, in and by which, the Writ petition was filed for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.2532/2 in Kaliyal Village, Kanyakumari District, has been dismissed by observing that the appellant can work out his remedy in the manner known law before the jurisdictional Civil Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.After going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are in entire agreement with the reasons rendered therein. When the appellant has obtained the decree, it is for him to workout his remedy before the Civil Court. However, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has committed an error during the factual finding that the appellant has not produced any record to show that the possession of the property was taken from the respondents. 3.The appellant has sought for a decree for declaration of his title and also declaration of his possession. On the basis of the said prayers, the consequential relief of permanent injunction has been sought for. It is not in dispute that the judgment of the Trial Court has become final. Therefore, we clarified by setting aside the said finding of the learned Single Judge. We confirm the other finding to the effect that it is open to the appellant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Kaliyal Village, Kaliyal, Kanyakumari District. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.31395 W.A.(MD)No.888 of 2011 13.09.2011 nbj SMA/21.09.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/