DILKUMAR Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was for declaration and mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, which were concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The essential facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal alone are stated. The father of the plaintiff had plaint A schedule property of 3.676 cents of land consisting of a building having three shop rooms. The father of the plaintiff executed Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1987 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 1.200 cents of land including shop room therein, forming the western portion of the plaint A schedule property. The father of the plaintiff sold 1.210 cents of land and the shop room therein situated on the immediate eastern side of Ext.A1 property to the defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.B1 sale deed of the year 1989. The balance land on the eastern side of Ext.B1 property was settled in favour of the brother of the plaintiff as per Ext.B2 deed of the year 1999. National Highway passes through the northern side of Exts.A1 and B1 properties. The northern portion of Ext.A1 and B1 properties were acquired for widening the National Highway. As per plaint allegations, after acquisition of part of the property by the Government, the original building in plaint A schedule property was demolished by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and they constructed a concrete building having shop rooms in its place and that the plaintiff is allotted the western shop room with 731 Sq.Links and the defendants 1 and 2 are allotted shop room with 617 Sq.Links on the immediate east. The balance land covered by Ext.A1 after acquisition having the said 731 Sq.Links and the building therein is included in B schedule. The balance land covered by Ext.B1 property after acquisition having the said 617 Sq.Links and the building therein is included in plaint C schedule. As per the plaint allegations, the defendants 1 and 2 encroached into the north eastern corner portion of plaint B schedule room having a width of one feet and a length of ten feet constructing a new wall pushing the existing boundary towards western side after demolishing the existing common wall. The said portion having a width of 1 feet and length of 10 feet is included in plaint D schedule. The alleged newly constructed wall is included in plaint E schedule. As per the plaint allegations, the 3rd defendant, who is the tenant of the plaintiff, supported the illegal action on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and he demolished the sunshade having a length of 3 1/2 feet and width of feet on the eastern side of plaint B schedule shop room.

(3.) The plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration of his title over plaint B schedule building; to recover possession of plaint D schedule from the 1st and 2nd defendants; to issue a mandatory injunction to demolish plaint D schedule wall, to construct a common wall on the centre of plaint B and C schedule rooms and to construct the demolished portion of F schedule sunshade; and to issue consequential injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint B schedule property and from taking any steps to reduce the area of plaint B schedule room and committing any waste therein.