AMBUKJAKSHI AMMA Vs. GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. 160 of 1974 of the Principal munsiff's Court, Parur are the appellants. The suit filed by them for mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction was dismissed by the trial court. In A. S. 8 of 1982 the Principal Sub Judge, Parur modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a declaration that the disputed wall is a common wall.

(2.) THE plaintiffs sought declaration that the wall separating their property and that of the defendants lie within their property and that the defendants have no right to meddle with it. Plaintiffs also wanted to restrain the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the wall. Injunction is also sought against trespass and commission of any act detrimental to the wall. Further there is prayer for the removal of encroachment made by the defendants and recovery of that portion of the property trespassed upon by them with damages.

(3.) THE averments in the plaint itself would indicate that the wall is the common wall between the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. In the plaint itself it is stated that the disputed wall forms part of the building belonging to the defendants which is on the southern side of plaintiff's property. THE commissioner's report and the oral evidence unmistakably show that both the parties are using the wall as the common wall and that they have the right to do so.