NAGARAJU @ M NAGARAJU Vs. UMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants filed this Regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2012 made in R.A. No.6/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at C.N. Halli dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2009 made in O.S. No.234/1991 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at C.N. Halli decreeing the suit of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No.234/1991, against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property including residential tile roofed house, tile roofed Vappara and vacant space. The defendants own land towards south of vacant ABCD sandu, which is reserved from the plaintiff for her use to clean, while washing AB wall and for obtaining air and light. The defendant is a stranger and nothing to do with the suit schedule property or ABCD sandu thereon. Inspite of knowing fully well and at the instance of the persons who are enemically disposed towards the plaintiff are encroaching ABCD sandu to construct Vappara by putting stones to the AB wall. The defendants stored the materials and hence, a suit was filed for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

(3.) The original defendant filed the written statement with a specific stand contending that the Vappara southern wall is a common wall running from East to west described as XY and towards south of XY wall, there is an open space and house of the defendant. It is further contended that the southern wall of XY has been repaired by the plaintiff. The alleged ABCD sandu is an imaginary one. The extent of house and land towards North of XY wall belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the niece of defendant and has filed the suit at the instance of her husband Mallikarjunaiah. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the original proceedings, the original defendant died and his LR's were brought on record.