P V KRISHNAIER Vs. PERUMAL NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. The respondent herein filed a suit substantially for three relief's: (1) for a declaration that the lane marked CEDF in the plaint plan in his exclusive property and for possession; (2) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to drain water from his tiled roof situate on the eastern side of the lane, and also to have a free flow of light and air through the windows that exist on his western wall shown as C. F. in the plaint plan, and (3) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the lane south of the line AF and also from letting in their sludge water in a gutter situate in that lane.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the lane marked CDEF, that the said lane belonged to them exclusively, that the plaintiff has no easementary right over that lane, and that the lane south of the line A F is not the exclusive lane of the plaintiff, but a municipal lane in which they have also a right to let in their sludge water.

(3.) ON these pleadings, the trial court held (1) that the title to the lane CDEF, though originally vested in the plaintiff, had been lost by adverse possession of the defendants, (2) that the plaintiff is entitled to the right of easement claimed in respect of the lane CDEF and (3) that the defendants have no right to let in sludge water by connecting his drainage to the gutter situate in the southern lane. Though in the judgment, the trial court held that the plaintiff had lost his titled to the CDEF portion, by inadvertence, its decree had been drafted as if the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title to that portion.