THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM Vs. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Second Defendant has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.1998 in A.S.No.26 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.1997 in O.S.No.751 of 1994 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.26 of 1998 dated 04.11.1998 has among other things observed that the Respondent/Plaintiff as per Ex.A1-Sale deed dated 21.09.1979 has used the lane as suit lane, measuring an extent of East West 2 = feet and South North 64 feet and in all has enjoyed 160 sq.ft. of lane and therefore, the lane portion belongs to the Respondent/Plaintiff and as such, the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration and in this regard a conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is a correct one and further during December 93 itself in the lane the Appellants have extended the "Eaves Dropping" and accordingly, the relief of Mandatory Injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff is a correct one and consequently, dismissed the first appeal with costs, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.751 of 1994 dated 25.09.1997.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following Substantial Question of Law for determination:- 1.) Whether the Courts below are right in granting a Decree for declaration and mandatory injunction for the lane, when the Plaintiff had not proved the title nor the alleged construction within 3 years preceding the date of filing the suit?