MEENAKUMARI Vs. MURUKESH KUMAR.M.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) THE following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision:

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property - 5 cents belongs to and is in his possession as per Ext.A1, gift deed No. 2409 of 1974. He claimed that the suit property is bounded on all sides with compound walls which also belongs to him. On the east of the suit property, there is a path way leading to the house of the respondent. The suit property and the said path way are separated by an old compound wall (forming part of the suit property). The respondent attempted to trespass into the suit property and demolish the eastern compound wall in an attempt to widen the existing path way. That persuaded the appellant to file the suit and seek a decree for prohibitory injunction.