LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-398

P. SULOCHANA Vs. PACKIA RETHINAM

Decided On August 08, 2008
P. Sulochana Appellant
V/S
Packia Rethinam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No.120 of 1995 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel and in Appeal Suit No.15 of 1997 by the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram are now under challenge.

(2.) THE first appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.120 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and she acquired the same by way of inheritance and also by way of sale deed dated 2.9.1978 and the said sale deed has been executed by the father of the plaintiff and sisters. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property. The suit property is having well defined four boundaries. The plaintiff has constructed a compound wall on the east and put up the gate after getting permission from the concerned panchayat. On the south, the northern wall of the house of one Andi Pillai and his compound wall are situate. On the west, the compound wall of one Ananchu Pillai is situate. On the north, the southern wall of the defendant's shop Nos.11/24 and 11/25 is situate. The defendants are the recent purchaser of shop Nos.11/24 and 11/25. The vendor of the defendant has got right only in respect of shop Nos.11/24 and 11/25. On 27.11.1986 the defendant with ulterior motive has demolished a portion in his southern wall and a police complaint has been filed. In the Police station, the defendant has given assurance to close the opening. On 26.2.1987 the defendant has started to dig a foundation and thereby encroached a portion of the suit property. The defendant is an influential person. The defendant has attempted to put up a wall on CD line which has been mentioned in the commissioner's plan and under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs indicated supra.