PAUL RAJ Vs. ESTHER RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.414 of 2011 having suffered a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction at the hands of the Courts below have come up with this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff laid the suit seeking aforesaid reliefs contending that she had purchased an extent of 5 cents in Survey No.510 / 4 from one Micheal Anthony on 19.02.1999. On the very same day, the first and second defendants purchased 3 cents and the third and fourth defendants purchased 7 cents in Survey No.510 / 2 from the said Micheal Anthony. The property purchased by the first and second defendants is on the west of the plaintiff's property. On the further west of the property purchased by the first and second defendants there is a road. Sale deeds executed by Micheal Anthony in favour of the plaintiff as well as the first and second defendants recite that they should leave out 10 feet wide pathway on the northern side to enable the owners, namely, the plaintiff and other purchasers from Micheal Anthony to reach the road on the west. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she has got right to use the 10 feet wide pathway that is situated northern side of Survey Nos.510/2 and 510/4 to reach the road on the western side. On the strength of the recitals in the sale deeds, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction. Claiming that the first defendant had encroached upon the said 10 feet pathway and had put up construction, the plaintiff also sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the said construction.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to 10 feet wide pathway. According to them, it is only a 5 feet pathway that was left. It is the further contention of the defendants that the construction put up by the first defendant is situated well within the three cents of the land purchased by him in Survey No.510/2 and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.