SIVAN Vs. VINEETHA KRISHNANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RFA 459/2018 arises from OS 386/2013. The suit is one for a mandatory injunction to reconstruct a demolished compound wall. RFA 270/2018 arises from OS 191/2012 which is a suit for damages. The suits were decreed by the trial court against which the defendants are in appeal.

(2.) The plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 Sale Deed of the year 1988. On the western side of the plaint schedule property is a public lane. Separating the public lane with the plaint schedule property is a compound wall. The defendants are residents on the northern and western sides of the plaint schedule property. In an attempt to widen the western lane, on 11/12/2011 the defendants and people under them demolished the western compound wall. It is thereupon that the suits were filed to restore the compound wall and also claiming damages.

(3.) The defendants denied having committed the alleged act. It was contended that the way on the western side of the plaint schedule property has a width of 9 feet. It was also contended that the compound wall collapsed due to the natural growth of teak tree which was standing on the boundary.