M. RAJADURAI Vs. P. SUNDARAPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, 26/7/2012 passed in A.S.No.82 of 2008, by the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, wherein, the judgment and decree, dtd. 25/11/2004, passed in O.S.No.183 of 2001 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, are reversed.

(2.) The first respondent herein as plaintiff, has instituted a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2001, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein, the appellants 1 to 4 and the second respondent have been shown as defendants 1 to 5.

(3.) In the plaint, it is averred that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father on 9/8/1974 and after his demise, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff on 17/8/1986, in particular, the land in Survey No.1329 measuring a total extent of 1.77 cents and in that, 3 cents were allotted in common to all the three brothers totalling 6 cents, was allotted for the pathway and out of the remaining 1.68 cents, the middle portion of 56 cents was allotted to the plaintiff and onethird share in the Well and pump-set and the common pathway was also allotted to the plaintiff and this property is shown as plaint first schedule property. The defendants does not have any right over the same and they are the executive committee members of Pathirakali Amman kovil of Salaiputhur and Nambiyanvilai. The Pathirakaliamman Kovil situated South of the suit property and during March, the defendants built a compound wall on the Northern side of the Temple and while doing so, they encroached upon the Southern most portion on the eastern side and built a compound wall running East-West. The defendants encroached an extent of 123 feet East-West Southern most portion on the Eastern side about 8 feet width and 2 feet width on the Western side and built a compound wall and this is shown as the second schedule property. The defendants initially agreed to remove the encroachment in the second schedule property and subsequently refused. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration declaring that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the plaint second schedule property. The second schedule property is the part of the first schedule property.