THERESA DSOUZA Vs. BRIZITH DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Caveator - respondent.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she filed the suit in O.S.No.192/2011 seeking the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of plaint 'B' schedule road or from obstructing the road in any way by putting fencing wire or any other method and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the granite stone pillars put on the 'B' schedule road or to remove any other obstruction made over in the plaint 'B' schedule road.

(3.) It is the claim of the plaintiff that 'A' schedule property belongs to her which is allotted in terms of the partition and she also contend that 'B' schedule property which belongs to the first defendant is touching Shankarapura main tar road, including the residential building and other improvements are all existing on the backside of the first defendant's 'B' schedule property. One road about 10 feet width is existing in the 'B' schedule property since the time of their ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendants to enter into the property of the plaintiff's 'A' schedule property which runs from Shankarapura tar road to the 'B' schedule property and next continues to some portion of one Janet Monisa's land and thereafter, enter into the land of plaintiff's 'A' schedule property. The said road is used by the plaintiff to enter into their property since the time of her father-in-law and still also used by herself and her family members. Since 5 days, the first defendant and her son second defendant are proclaiming in the locality that they will make some improvements in the plaint 'B' schedule property and causing obstruction to the plaintiff to enter into their 'A' schedule property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction.