BAGAVATHIAPPA GOUNDER ALIAS@ BAVUTHIYAPPA GOUNDER Vs. KARUPPAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who lost the suit before the trial Court and in the appeal, his claim was also negatived by the 1st appellate Court.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court for the reliefs of permanent injunction and for damages and costs in respect of the suit property viz. , one well and the right to bale water from the said well located in the western half of S. No. 817 for an extent of 9.13 1/2 cents with vaikkal, thotti and thulai etc and also using the 5 H. P. Oil Engine Motor, cement pipe line exclusively belonging to him and also to enjoy the velan trees and other trees along with right of walking and other easmentary rights in the said property at Thennilai East village, Karur Taluk and District.

(3.) The basis of claim made by the plaintiff was that there was a dispute in between the plaintiff and one Marayee ammal and others in respect of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit against the said Marayee ammal and others in O. S. No. 908 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur for permanent injunction and other reliefs. Ultimately, the said suit was compromised among the parties and a compromise decree was passed on 18.12.1979 in terms of the compromise had by the parties on 17.12.1979. In the said agreement, it was specifically agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to take water from the well situated in S. F. No. 817 measuring 18.27 acres. It was also agreed in between the parties that the eastern half of 9.13 1/2 cents sold by the vendors to the plaintiff's father Rangasamy through the sale deed dated 06.09.1927, was also with the right to get water from the well situated in its western half. It is also further claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants were inimical towards the plaintiff and therefore, the compromise reached in between them in the earlier suit and the right given to the plaintiff's father and after the life time of the father to the plaintiff and the defendant was preventing the plaintiff to enjoy the same and therefore the plaintiff sustained damages too. The plaintiff also claimed the rights over the trees standing in the western half and therefore he had requested the Court to pass an order of permanent injunction against the defendants in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his rights in the plaint schedule property and also to direct the defendants to pay Rs. 2,400/-being the plaintiff's half share of the value of the trees cut by them and also for costs.