T.G.RAMANI Vs. B.NANDAGOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the defendant. She suffered a decree of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction at the hands of the trial court. She was restrained from making any construction in the plaint B schedule property near its northern boundary without leaving space as required under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') from the house of the plaintiff. The defendant was further restrained from causing any nuisance to the peaceful living of the plaintiff in the plaint A schedule property. The defendant was directed to remove the latrine constructed in the B schedule property. She appealed. But lost. Hence is she in second appeal.

(2.) The case pleaded in the plaint is briefly stated below: The plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. He purchased it under Ext A1 sale deed. The defendant owns the plaint B schedule property. The said property is on the southern side of the A schedule property. The B schedule property lies at a higher level than the A schedule property by 6 feet. The defendant started construction of a latrine, a shed and a kennel near the northern boundary wall of her property in violation of the Act. Foul water and filth from the latrine and the kennel flow into the property of the plaintiff causing him nuisance.

(3.) The defendant raised the following contentions: No permission from the panchayat is required to construct the latrine, RSA.No.427 OF 2019 shed and the kennel constructed by the defendant. No nuisance is caused to the plaintiff by the defendant. Foul water and waste materials from the latrine and kennel are not flowing into the property of the plaintiff.