RUKUMANI AMMAL Vs. P. A. PERIYASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in her suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendants in the suit are admittedly the owners of the land west of the suit property. The cause of action for the suit alleged to have arisen on 05.04.2003, when the 1 st defendant with the active support of his men, attempted to trespass into the suit property and form a cart track in the suit property.

(3.) According to the plaint, she is the widow of Late.Arunachala Gounder. On 06.07.1977 Arunachala Gounder and his brother C.Palanisamy through the partition deed divided the family property among themselves. The suit property measuring 0.76 acres was allotted to the Arunachala Gounder. On the death of Arunachala Gounder, who died intestate in the year 1979, the plaintiff and her son Thangaraj @ A.Palanisamy, the 5 th defendant, became the absolute owners of the suit property. On the northern side of the suit property, the residential building of the plaintiff and 5 th defendant is located. On the East of the suit property, the land and building of the 2 nd defendant is located. Further, on the East, the land of the 1 st defendant is located. The lands of the respective parties are well de-marked with specific survey numbers. On the north of the plaintiff and defendant's land, runs the water channel of 2 feet breath in the middle of 15 feet width porambokku land of Lower Bavani Project. The Porumbokku land on the South of the water channel is the access to the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 land. Except the channel prombokku land, no other space was used for access. Though, in the partition deed of the year 1979 some space on the north of the patta land was left, the second defendant has constructed his house in the year 1957 without leaving any space on the north. The access to his property is from the east. Similarly, the 3 rd and 4 th defendants had constructed their house leaving only 4 feet on the northern side. In that space, there are old trees. The space left on the north of the plaintiff's patta land was never used as access by the first defendant. While so, claiming that, he have an order of the Court to use the northern space of the plaintiff as cart track, the first defendant is making attempt to create a cart track.