NELLIKAPARAMBATH MARIYAM Vs. KARUVANKANDI THAZHA KUNI ACHUTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.33 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli is aggrieved by the concurrent finding entered by that court as well as the first appellate court and negation of the right claimed by her.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant/plaintiff, plaint A schedule belongs to her as per Ext.A1, assignment deed dated 27.04.2005. She produced Ext.A2, receipt for payment of revenue for the said property and claimed that property on the north belongs to respondents 1 and 2. On the northern boundary of the plaint A schedule there is a granite wall while on the southern boundary of the property of respondents 1 and 2 there is a mud wall of six feet height. It is the further case of appellant that there is an old water chal between the granite and mud walls at a width of one metre and depth of one metre. ACCORDING to the appellant, the water chal does not belong to herself or respondents 1 and 2. There is a Panchayat road on the western side of plaint A schedule and another water chal running parallel to the said road, from north to south. That water chal passes through the property of respondents 1 and 2. Property of respondents 1 and 2 is at a higher level from plaint B schedule water chal. Grievance of the appellant is that stagnation of water in plaint B schedule damages crops in plaint A schedule. In the presence of the Panchayat authorities it was decided to install pipes across the road and accordingly, appellant installed five pipes. While she was attempting to install pipes further, there was obstruction from the respondents. It is further alleged that respondents have put up mud and stone in plaint B schedule, water chal. Hence appellant prayed for prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

(3.) ANSWERING the issue against the appellant, she was non-suited. Learned Sub Judge, Koyilandy in A.S.No.3 of 2010 considered whether there is reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court, found against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.