KANNIAPPAN & ANOTHER Vs. EKAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.12.2004 in E.P. No. 103 of 2004 in O.S. No. 626 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

(2.) The Decree-holder is the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 626 of 1982, before the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. In the suit, the Petitioner sought for a judgment and decree to declare that the suit property marked ABCD in the plaint plan absolutely belongs to the Plaintiff and as a consequence direct the Defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property, failing which the same may be done through Court and for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and his men from in any way putting up a bunk or superstructure in front of the Plaintiffs' property in door No. 73/A/1, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram in T.S. Nos. 2626 & 2617, both on the western and southern sides.

(3.) At this stage, it would be necessary to take note of the plaint averments. According to the Petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the bunk shop and aerated water shop in premises No. 73/A/1, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram and on the southern side, there is a private road belonging to the Petitioner, which is an access for all the owners of the plots including the Petitioners and that the Petitioners are having access and frontage both on the western and southern sides. While so, the Respondent/Defendant with a view to cause loss to the Petitioner and preventing access on the southern side has placed a wooden bunk in front of the Petitioners' shop in the road portion of the layout, which is a private property of the Petitioners marked ABCD in the plan in or about 1978. As the Respondent failed to remove the bunk and handover vacant possession, the Petitioner was obliged to file for declaration of their title to the suit property and for consequential relief of possession of the suit property from the Defendant. Further, it was stated that the Defendant was threatening to put a bunk in front of the road margin preventing the frontage on the western and southern side of the Petitioners' shop and that this would be affecting his right of easement and therefore, the Petitioner prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from putting up any bunk blocking the frontage of the Petitioners in future. According to the plaint, the cause of action for the suit arose in or about 1978, when the Defendant put up the bunk in the suit property and subsequently, when the Petitioner requested the Defendant remove the same from 1982.