V.CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDRASEKARAN is the appellant and Srinivasan is the respondent in both the appeals, namely, S.A.No.1965 of 2001 and S.A.No.1452 of 2005. The parties in these appeals are referred, as per the status assigned to them in the second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.496 of 1997, seeking the relief of injunction and declaration of his title to the 'B' schedule property, which measures 10 feet x 8 feet, forming part of A schedule property, namely, the larger extent of 17 cents. The respondent obtained an order of injunction on 19.12.1997 in I.A.No.1656 of 1997 restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession of B schedule property. The suit was decreed with costs in favour of the respondent. The title to the suit property in respect of A schedule was declared and the appellant was directed to remove the thatched shed put up by him in the B schedule property, pending the litigation. Challenging the decree and judgment, the appeal which was filed in A.S.No.10 of 2000 got dismissed. As against which, the appellant filed S.A.No.1965 of 2001 raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) BRIEF facts (facts are narrated based upon the earlier suit filed, in which respondent is the plaintiff):- The suit 'A' schedule property is an extent of 17 cents, out of 57 cents, in R.S.No.198/1 at Thirukoilur. 'B' Schedule property is an extent of east west 10 feet and north south 8 feet. This extent is to the east, west and south of plaintiff's property and to the north of Sitheri Vaikkal. The respondent purchased the property by virtue of the sale deed, dated 27.03.1991. The respondent was in possession by putting up a godown and keeping the rest of the property as a vacant site. To the south of Sitheri Vaikkal, the appellant has put up a thatched shed and is running a hotel. The appellant has no right in R.S.No.198/1, i.e., in the suit property. When the appellant tried to interfere with the possession of B schedule property, the respondent prevented it. When the disturbance continued, he filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction.