VEERATEESWARAN Vs. MEENALOCHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed at the instance of the Plaintiff in OS.No.203/98 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal and has been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The suit in OS.No.203/98 was instituted by the Appellant/Plaintiff for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from interfering with the suit property, that is the pillar and the portico, the structure resting over the said pillar in his house bearing Door No.217, Ward F, Block 38, RS.No.77/1. According to the Plaintiff, the above said house property belonged to his father, who got it under a deed of exchange from her mother and to reach the said house from the Church Street, there is a long passage. At the commencement of the passage, there is a compound wall with an iron gate at the entrance fixed to the pillars on either side and the portico of the house rests on the southern pillar. According to the Plaintiff, the area on which the pillar stands and the pillars belong to him and it is part of the house property of the Plaintiff. It exists from the year 1963 or even prior to it. As incorrect measurements were given by the surveyor, who measured the property at the instance of the Respondent, the Plaintiff had requested for resurvey and the same is pending. The Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant attempted to demolish the pillar on the southern side and remove the gate claiming that the said pillar is within her limits and boundaries. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) In the Written Statement filed by the Respondent, she denied that the southern side pillar belonged to the Plaintiff and the surveyor's report clearly disclosed that the area on which the pillar stood is within her limits. It is stated that at the request made by the Plaintiff, the surveyor again took measurements and reiterated that the suit pillar is within the limits of the property purchased by the Defendant. According to her, the southern gate of the Plaintiff was fixed with the permission of the Defendant's vendor with an undertaking to remove, when the house of the Plaintiff requires reconstruction or new construction. Thus, she had pleaded that there was oral license granted to the Plaintiff's predecessor in title by her vendor to fix the gate on the pillar on the northern side of her property and denied the claim of the Plaintiff that the pillar and the area on which it stands belonged to her.