DEVENDRAN Vs. VANJU GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 made in A.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. Partly allowed the Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2012 made in O.S.No.12 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as found in the plaint is that, the plaintiff purchased A schedule property from Devendran and others on 14.11.1980, the survey number of the property which he has purchased is 338/3 however, in the sale deed it was wrongly mentioned as 338/4. The remaining extend of land held by Devendran and others was sold to one Teekaraman under sale deeds dated 27.02.1997 and 2.02.1997. One Jayavelu has also purchased a portion of the land mentioned in the A schedule property on 15.07.1998. The plaintiff has purchased from Jayavelu and Teekaraman, the properties falling under A schedule property on 13.10.1999. Thus, the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of entire extend of A schedule property. The B schedule property is battai poramboke [pathway] situated in Survey No.338/2 between the highways Road called as Vellore to Odugathur Road. The A1 schedule property owned by the plaintiff. This battai poramboke falling under Survey No.338/2 measuring about 10 feet East to West running from North to South on the western side of the plaintiff property which is the adjacent road for the plaintiff. The property which is described as C schedule property is also additional path way for his ingress and egress to reach his property described under A schedule. While so, the defendants, in order to harass the plaintiff, cause in connivance and loss to him, claiming ownership of piece of land in survey no.338/3 which is actually a portion of plaintiff' A schedule property. First Defendant causing disturbance to peaceful possession and enjoyment upon the plaintiff right over the portion of land marked as AEGH in sketch annexed with the plaint. The claim of the first defendant that they have purchased land measuring North to South two feet and East to West 74 feet in S.No.338/3 which is actually a portion of the plaintiff's A schedule property is not legal and valid. It does not bind the right of the plaintiff or others. The defendants by claiming right over that piece land illegally trying to prevent the plaintiff reaching his property through the said battai poramboke described in the B Schedule property.

(3.) In addition, they also tried to prevent the plaintiff from having access C schedule property since, the claim of the defendant are illegal and unlawful they have no right to prevent the plaintiff to have access over the A schedule property either through B-schedule property or C schedule property. Hence permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from reaching is A schedule property passing through B and C schedule properties and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff possession and enjoyment of the A schedule property.