JOHN @ JOSEPH Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.161/2002 who was successful before the trial court but suffered at the hands of the lower appellate court which dismissed the suit, has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff owns plaint item Nos.1 and 2. The plaint item No.3 is a pipeline which is drawn from item No.2 to item No.1. Earlier to the drawing of pipeline, there was a pully arrangement by which the plaintiff claimed to have been drawing water from the property of one Jose. Since Jose objected to the installation of electric motor, the plaintiff had to find another means to get water and therefore he purchased item No.2 and laid the pipeline. The definite case of the plaintiff is that the pipeline shown as item No.3 is through a puramboke land over which the 1st defendant had no manner of right. That pipeline had been laid long ago. Pointing out that the 1st defendant is attempting to put up a cattle shed threatening the pipeline, the suit was laid.

(3.) THE 1st defendant resisted the suit pointing out that an extent of 16.750 sq. links of land was assigned to her father by patta and as a legal heir she was in possession of the same. Her further contention was that she wanted to put up a house and when she had laid foundation for the same, with ulterior motive, the plaintiff with the connivance of officials of the Village Office changed the position of the pipeline which was 100 feet away from the northern side of the proposed building. She disputed the claim of the plaintiff that the property through which pipeline was drawn was puramboke land. According to her, it belonged to her father and subsequently she came into possession of the same. She therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.