C.RAVINDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns 13 cents of residential property in survey Nos.56 and 58 of Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Ext.P1 is the copy of basic tax receipt. On the western side of petitioner's property (wrongly written as eastern side in the writ petition) there is a water channel through which water passes during rainy season. According to the petitioner, it has a width of 50 c.m. and length of 37 metres. On the west of the water channel, the property originally belonged to one Bindhu is situate. When the petitioner attempted to construct a boundary wall on the western side of his property, Bindhu obstructed and she filed O.S.No.23 of 1982 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for declaration and injunction reliefs. The suit was decreed in her favour. Petitioner took up the matter in A.S.No.121 of 1989 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellate court after considering the entire matters, modified the decree passed by the trial court and confined it to the declaratory reliefs sought for. Ext.P2 is the copy of appellate court's judgment. Subsequently Bindhu sold the property to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Petitioner filed O.S.No.1382 of 2006 before the Additional Munsiff's Court -I, Thiruvananthapuram against Bindhu alleging that she was trying to annex a portion of the water channel to her property. Since the suit was filed after sale of the property to respondent Nos.4 and 5, they were also impleaded in the suit. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner had filed A.S.No.40 of 2009 before the District Court -III, Thiruvananthapuram. Ultimately petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 settled the matter as per Ext.P3 compromise. Petitioner submits that he decided to surrender 50 c.m. to the water channel to make its width to one metre. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have no right either over the properties held by the petitioner or in respect of the water channel. They threatened to cause harm to the life of the petitioner if he attempted to construct a compound wall on the western side of his property. Petitioner approached the police authorities with Exts.P4 and P5 representations. As there was no result, he approaches this Court for the following reliefs:

(2.) Respondents 6 and 7 entered appearance through a counsel and filed a counter affidavit, opposing the claims in the writ petition. It is their contention that a lane called Padinjattil lane passes through the southern side of petitioner's property. More than 30 persons including the respondents used the said lane for their ingress and egress. The lane lies in a slop from east to west. During rainy season, water, along with waste materials, passes through the lane making it impossible for persons to walk. There is a water channel passing through the eastern side of the petitioner's property starting from Padinjattil lane. Originally the water channel had more than two metres width. According to the contesting respondents, the petitioner trespassed into a part of the water channel and narrowed down its width. By the act of the petitioner, the free flow of water through the channel is blocked. Petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the additional 8th respondent (Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram) and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7.