C.C.JACOB Vs. ROY KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.543/2018 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha.

(2.) The suit is instituted for granting a decree of prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction.

(3.) The material averments in the plaint are the following: The plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and it is in his exclusive possession. The northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property is a public canal having a width of two feet. The property of the defendant lies on the northern side of the public canal. The northern boundary of the public canal is the way to the property of the defendant. It has got an average width of four feet. On 15.01.2018, the defendant reclaimed a portion of the public canal and annexed it to the aforesaid four feet way. This reclaimed portion of the public canal is described in the plaint B schedule. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to restore the public canal to its original position. Then, the defendant requested the plaintiff to permit him to demolish the boundary (kayyala) on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property and to create a motorable way to enable him to transport the articles required for the maintenance of his house. The defendant had agreed that he would restore the boundary within a month and that he would also lay a pipe through the plaint B schedule property to enable free flow of water. The plaintiff granted permission to the defendant to do so. Accordingly, on 20.01.2018, the northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property was demolished and the width of the way existing there was increased to eight feet. Even after the construction of the house, the defendant did not keep his promise. On 25.04.2018, due to the intervention of mediators, the defendant agreed that he would purchase from the plaintiff the property which is required for the way and that he would lay a pipe through that portion of the canal which was reclaimed by him. The defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement. On 11.11.2018, when the plaintiff made attempt to restore the boundary on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property, the defendant obstructed him and threatened that the width of the way would be further increased by trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.