K.RAJATHI Vs. V.A.PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the original suit is the appellant. The plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents herein. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 279 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant herein/defendant to remove the unauthorized construction put up by her in Site No. 8 and for the removal of the encroachments made by her in Site No. 9 in the lay out formed in S. Nos. 395/2, 396/1 and 396/2 in Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/defendant from making any construction or encroachment or alteration in the said sites. The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, after trial, decreed the suit as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 7.7.2011. The said decree was challenged by the appellant herein before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore in A.S. No. 96 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore by a judgment and decree dated 29.7.2012. Challenging the said decree of the lower appellate Court by which the decree passed by the trial Court stands confirmed, the present second appeal has been preferred. The admitted facts are as follows:-

(2.) The appellant herein/defendant resisted the suit contending that when she applied for approval of the plan for putting up a construction in Plot No. 7 purchased by her, the same was declined stating that there was a proposal to form a scheme road cutting across Plot No. 7; that her vendors knowing the said fact had sold Plot No. 7 to her suppressing the said proposal and thereby cheated her; that on coming to know of the same, she approached the respondents/plaintiffs through mediators and the respondents/plaintiffs consented for the appellant/defendant taking Plot No. 8 instead of Plot No. 7; that despite the same, when the appellant/defendant approached the respondents/plaintiffs with a draft rectification deed, they refused to come and execute the same and that only with the knowledge of the respondents/plaintiffs, the appellant/defendant was putting up the construction and that hence the suit filed by them for the above said reliefs should be dismissed.

(3.) Based on the above said pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed three issues, which are as follows: