AMBROSE Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A kudikidappukaran is the appellant in both the second appeals. O.S. No. 145 of 1968 was filed against him and another by the landlord 'for a permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing into the plaint 'A' schedule property and from putting up any new structures therein. O. S. No. 56 of 1969 was filed by him for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff in the earlier suit from trespassing into the property where his kudikidappu stood and from putting up any new structures therein. In this judgment, the parties will hereafter be referred to according to their rank in O. S. No.145 of 1968.

(2.) During the trial, it was noted that a pit latrine in the property wag converted by the defendant into an E. S. P. type. Therefore, in O. S. No. 145 of 1968 no injunction was granted to restrain him from converting the pit latrine into an E. S. P. type, but he was restrained from putting up any new structures in the property. In O. S. No. 56 of 1969 an injunction decree was given restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the amenities enjoyed by the defendant in item (2) in the plaint schedule therein. The plaintiff was however allowed to construct structures in the vacant space without interfering with the defendants' use and enjoyment of the structure5 described in item (2).

(3.) The plaintiff appealed. The appellate Court granted an injunction to him restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property or otherwise interfering with the right of possession of the plaintiff, subject to the rights of the defendants to possess and enjoy the extent adjoining the kudikidappu which they were entitled to purchase under the Act. O. S. No. 56 of 1979 was virtually dismissed. The appeals were therefore disposed of in effect in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has come up in appeal.