GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. THIRUNAKKARA DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant appeals against the decree of the learned Second Additional District Judge of Kottayam awarding damages to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 2,205/- and proportionate costs.

(2.) First defendant is the wife cf the second defendant the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendants are adjoining property owners, the defendants' property being immediately on the north of that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed a wall on their property on their northern boundary separating their compound from that of the defendants. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, quarried the stones from their property which resulted in the deprivation of the lateral support to the plaintiff's compound wall.

(3.) The first defendant, the; wife, remained ex parte and the husband the second defendant appellant contested the suit. He contended that his compound is or, much a lower level than that of the plaintiff and for the purpose of constructing a building, the second defendant, in exercise of his lawful rights, levelled his plot. He also did some quarrying, as he was entitled to do in his property. He also contended that the compound wall and the kitchen of the plaintiff has not been affected by any act of his, but on the other hand, they have suffered, if at all, duo to improper construction without adequate foundation. In the alternative, he also contended that the damages claimed by the plaintiff was excessive.