LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-128

IYYANKUTTY Vs. VASANTHAKUMARI

Decided On June 13, 2012
IYYANKUTTY Appellant
V/S
VASANTHAKUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was successful before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.271 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, against the respondent/defendant praying for a judgment and decree to declare that in respect of the suit property measuring 3/"th cents in resurvey No.295/6 at Thumbacode Village, Kanyakumari District, he is the owner of the said property and for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to remove the offending construction put up on the said property. It is averred by the appellant/plaintiff that the plaint schedule property in Survey No.295/6, at Thumbacode Village, Kanyakumari District having an area of 3 "th cents with the superstructure thereon and the compound wall was purchased by him by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1981 (Ex.A.1). Thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the southern compound wall. The appellant/plaintiff would further submit that originally the compound wall was constructed with granite stones with a height of six feet and the thickness of the said wall is 1 th feet and the wall is aged about 35 to 45 years. From the date of purchase of the property (Ex.A1), the appellant/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and its compound wall. The respondent/defendant started claiming the title to the property which lies south of the suit property in resurvey No.295/7. Taking advantage of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff is working in foreign country, namely Oman, the respondent/defendant raised a height of the scheduled property to 3 feet by putting up construction and the said construction is also projecting about 9 inches north of the schedule property.

(3.) IT is also stated by the respondent/defendant that he has purchased the total eight cents including the building and he is the owner of the property in the schedule property and that he has not raised the height of the schedule property and also did not make any construction as alleged in the plaint. Therefore, the respondent/defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.