VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. JAYALAKSHMI
LAWS(KER)-2017-3-177
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 23,2017

VIJAYAKUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
JAYALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B. Kemal Pasha, J. - (1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.371/1996, followed by those of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.27/2005, the legal heirs of defendants 1 and 3 have come up with this second appeal.
(2.) The suit is one, for fixation of the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property and for perpetual injunction, filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to construct a boundary wall on the northern side of plaint A schedule property by fixing AGR line noted in Ext.C2(a) plan as the northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property, and also passed a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching into the plaint A schedule property and from doing anything curtailing the right and possession of the plaintiff over plaint A schedule property, and also by restraining the defendants from making any construction encroaching into the plaint A schedule property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the legal heirs of the first defendant, including the 3rd defendant, preferred A.S.No.27/2005 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The lower appellate court concurred with the findings entered by the trial court, and modified the judgment and decree as follows: "The northern boundary of A schedule is fixed as AGF line in Ext.C2(a) plan. The respondent is allowed to construct the boundary wall through the AGF line. The appellants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the A schedule and making any constructions thereon. Ext.C2(a) plan form part of the decree."
(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint A schedule property, having an extent of 20 cents, belongs to the plaintiff. She constructed a building towards the western portion of the plaint A schedule property and thereafter, constructed a compound wall for the building by separating the plot in which she has put up the building with the remaining portion of plaint A schedule property, also by leaving a portion having 2½ meters width at the northern side of the said compound wall, for having access to the remaining portions of plaint A schedule property at the rear side. The portion at which the building is situated inside the said compound wall is plaint B schedule property. The remaining portions of plaint A schedule property, excluding plaint B schedule property, is plaint C schedule pathway. In effect, the plaintiff wants to construct a compound wall at the northern boundary of plaint C schedule pathway, which is the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property, also.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.