H E SHASHIKALA Vs. H M KANTHAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant in the Trial Court in O.S. No. 398 of 1995 and she calls in question the concurrent findings of the Courts below which led to the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for permanent injunction being decreed and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by dismissing R.A. No. 86 of 2005 preferred by the appellant herein.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case before the Trial Court, as could be seen from the plaint averments, was that the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property from one Sowbhagya under two registered sale deeds dated 20-11-1989 for valuable consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and the suit schedule property was purchased in two bits, each measuring 24' x 55' and said Sowbhagya, in turn, has purchased the said property from one Seethalakshmi and even in the khatha, the measurement was 48' x 55'. It was the case of the plaintiffs that though the khatha was changed in the names of the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property was not pucca phoded and no durasthi work was undertaken by the survey authorities and after the measurement was done by the ADLR, Mandya, the plaintiffs' property was shown as measuring 52' x 50' and accordingly, the sale deed was also rectified by mentioning the dimension as 52 x 50 instead of 48 x 55. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant owned a site towards the East of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property and the defendant had purchased the property from one Ashwathanarayana and after the durasthi work and fixing of the boundary stone, it was found that towards the eastern side of the defendant, the neighbour had encroached about four feet space and the defendant, therefore, tried to encroach into the plaintiffs' suit schedule property and an attempt was made to encroach 3 to 4 feet from the plaintiffs' schedule property for the purpose of putting up the compound wall. Stating that on 7-10-1995, the defendant made an attempt to put up a compound in the plaint schedule property and that the defendant did not stop her illegal activities and made an attempt again on 29-10-1995, the plaintiffs sought for permanent injunction being granted to them and to restrain the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(3.) The said pleadings of the parties led the Trial Court to frame relevant issues as could be seen at page 17 of the paper book and after evidence appreciation, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred regular appeal before the lower Appellate Court and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal.