JECINTHA Vs. KALIYAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS No.196 of 2009 aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit, for declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession, by the Trial Court and its affirmation by the Lower Appellate Court has come up with this Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff sued for declaration and injunction claiming that she has purchased an extent of 16 cents from one Rahamathunnisha under a Sale deed dated 28.05.2003. The said Rahamathunnisha had purchased the said property from one Kaliyaperumal under a Sale Deed dated 03.09.1990. Claiming that the defendants had encroached upon her property to an extent of 10 cents, the plaintiff sued for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the defendants have purchased the lands in question under the Sale Deeds Exs.A4 and B1. They have been in possession of the property on the east of the AD ridge in the plaint plan. It is also claimed that the description of the property is not correct. It is further contention that AD ridge is an old permanent ridge and the plaintiff or her vendor Rahamathunnisha have no right on the east of the said ridge. The permanent ridge is an existence even prior to 1990 viz., the date of purchase by Rahamathunnisha. The Physical features prevailing viz., the presence of an electricity pole as well as trees in the AD ridge was also pointed out by the defendants to claim that the plaintiff is not possession of any land on the east of the said ridge.