PARVATHI Vs. M RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.5311 of 2004 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the marked portion ABCD in the plaint sketch, for injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from interfering with his rights to use the well as marked 'W' in the sketch, for mandatory injunction to restore the hand pump attached to the Well and for injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from letting out the drainage water in the drainage line laid by the respondent/ plaintiff.

(3.) THE appellant contested the suit stating that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action and in the cause of action paragraph nothing has been stated about the acts done by the appellant and in respect of portion ABCD the appellant has perfected title by adverse possession by using the property for more than 25 years and the Well was dug by the father of the appellant and it is her exclusive property and the respondent is taking water from the hand pump and there is no proof that the common drainage laid in the common passage is the exclusive property of the respondent and therefore the respondent is not entitled to the decree prayed for.