M MEHAROOB Vs. ABDUL NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in OS No.288/2005 followed by those of the Additional District Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram in AS No.53/2009, the defendant in the suit has come up in Second Appeal. The suit is one for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.

(2.) The 1 st plaintiff claims title over plaint A schedule property by virtue of Ext.A4 settlement deed executed by the 2 nd plaintiff in favour of the 1 st plaintiff, allegedly based on Exts.A1 and A3 settlement deeds executed by the paternal grandmother and father of the 2 nd plaintiff in her favour. Ext.A2 is a correction deed whereby the mistake crept in the survey number in Exts.A1 and A3 has been corrected. A portion having an extent of 72 square metres were acquired from the property for the widening of the National Highway, from its northern portion. The defendant has purchased 838 square links of property from the sister of the 2 nd plaintiff on whom her father had settled the said property through Ext.A9 settlement deed.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, they had surrendered 25 square feet of space to the defendant and granted permission to the defendant to construct the southern wall of the building of the defendant adjacent to the northern boundary of the property of the 1 st plaintiff and further by enabling him to put the southern portion of the foot of the pillar for the wall protruding into the portions of the property of the 1 st plaintiff. Such an understanding was entered into between the 2 nd plaintiff as the first party and the defendant as the second party, through Exhibit A5 agreement dated 15.10.2000. With out the consent of the 2 nd plaintiff, the defendant could not have put up his building by constructing the southern wall at the place, where it presently exists.