AYYAVU Vs. PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 379 of 1998 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif Kuzhithurai is the appellant. The appellant filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction to allow the plaintiff to remove the granite construction allegedly put up by the respondents/defendants and for other reliefs. The plaint schedule consists of two items. The first item deals with an extent of 16 cents and the second item deals with 5 cents. The plaintiff's case is that one Mariyammal, daughter of Anthoni Nadachi, was the owner of the plaint schedule. Through a registered sale deed, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property, and with the permission of the Gram Panchayat, alleges to have constructed a residential building. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful occupation and enjoyment of a portion of the plaint schedule which is more fully described and contended as an old well. Further, respondent nos. 1 to 3 have also put up a compound wall separating the western boundary of the plaint schedule with the portion identified as the old well. The plaintiff, therefore, resting the case on the sale deed dtd. 23/8/1988, filed the suit for the reliefs noted above.

(3.) At the first instance, the suit was laid against respondent nos. 1 to 3. Subsequently, respondent nos. 4 to 7 have been impleaded as defendants by way of an amendment. The suit was primarily resisted by respondent nos. 1 to 3. The gist of the defendants' case is that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim ownership to the disputed portion of the plaint schedule; moreover, the portion marked as old well stands away from the schedules covered by the sale deed. The portion continued to remain with Mariyammal, and on 6/8/1998, Mariyammal executed a settlement deed in favour of the Governor of Tamil Nadu for an extent of 1 1/4 cents, which includes the disputed well. By passing the resolution dtd. 13/8/1996, development was undertaken and the plaintiff without any manner of right obstructed the work undertaken by the defendants. The fifth defendant/the Panchayat claims that the disputed 1 1/4 cents stood vested in Gram Panchayat through a settlement deed to have been executed by Mariyammal. Therefore, the prayer for injunction is unavailable. The Trial Court framed the following issues: