AMBIKESWARI Vs. V. KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals are preferred as against the judgement and decree dated 29.07.2004, passed in A.S.Nos.7 and 30 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.116 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:- 3.1. The suit is filed for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Originally, the suit property along with the other property belonged to Thirumathi Andal. She sold out the property admeasuring 955 1/2 square feet of property on its eastern side in favour of the husband of the plaintiff, by the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1986. Thereafter, she put up terraced building on the western side portion of her remaining property. The western side property facing the Sathyamoorthy Road and the front side admeasuring north to south. Thereafter, she sold out the said western portion admeasuring 695 square feet along with terraced building built up thereon to one Srinivasa Rao in the year 1993, retaining the portion namely, the suit property of her own. The suit property described as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, as shown in the rough sketch annexed with the plaint. Thereafter, she sold out the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 21.02.1994, admeasuring 1068 square feet land together with the building, marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, in the rough sketch annexed along with the plaint. Even while purchasing the said property, there was structures over the area shown as A, B, F, G, of the suit property and it was agreed by vendor and the said Srinivasa Rao to remove the same at the earliest. When the plaintiff insisted him to remove the super structure projecting from her property, though he admitted to remove the said portion, he sold out the entire property admeasuring 695 square feet together with the buildings to the defendants by two different sale deeds in the month of November 1994. Therefore, defendants are entitled to only the property admeasuring 695 square feet of land together with built up area and they do not have any right over the property which marked as A, B, F, G, and structures projecting into the said open space area from their property and as such, it is liable to be removed as agreed by their vendor. In the month of December 1995, again the defendants attempted to put up further structure in the portion marked as A, B, F, G, and as such filed suit for permanent injunction for the same portion, restraining the defendants from putting up any structures and also not to allow the rainy water flow which fall over the entire suit property.