Y V MUNIRAJU Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2002 passed by the learned XXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.943/1983.

(2.) By the said judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiffappellant herein seeking relief of declaration that the plaint B Schedule Property vacant space was part and parcel of the property belonging to the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction against defendants 1 & 2 to remove the door and windows opened by them in their southern wall and also for permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 & 2 from making use of the vacant passage has been dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming that he was the owner of the entire property consisting of several tenements comprised in Sy. No.77/6 of Yelahanka. The plaintiff described the property owned by him in plaint A schedule. He contended that towards the north of the plaintiff's property, the property belonging to one Byramma was located towards Bellary road side and after that towards west of the same, the property belonging to the 1st defendant was located. It was asserted by the plaintiff that no vacant land was left behind the plaintiff's property and the 1st defendant's property. It was also urged by him that the southern wall of the 1st defendant's house was put up to the edge of her southern boundary without leaving any vacant space in between her property and that of the plaintiff's property. Plaintiff further urged that to the north of her property, he had left vacant space as passage for the purpose of ingress and egress to have access to the tenements not only from Bellary Road but also from Hosabeedi road. In sum and substance, the plaint averments disclosed that there was vacant passage in between the property of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that the vacant passage formed part of the property of the plaintiff and not that of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defendants 1 & 2 who were in occupation of the property lying to the southern side of the plaintiff's property, without obtaining permission or license from the Town Municipality, Yelahanka, put up a door and windows on the southern side of the house of the 1st defendant during the first week of March 1983. As a result, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.