SEKAR Vs. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.106 of 2012 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District for declaration that the plaint 'D' schedule property is part and parcel of plaint 'C' schedule 15 feet common pathway. The plaintiffs further prayed for a declaration that the sale deed dtd. 2/12/2011 executed by the second defendant through the third defendant in favour of the first defendant with regard to 'D' schedule property is invalid and void and will not bind the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs common right of pathway over the plaint 'C' schedule property by constructing any building or obstructing the 15 feet common pathway in 'C' schedule property including the 'D' schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants filed A.S.No.65 of 2015 before the I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the same, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.

(3.) The plaintiffs had contended that the parents of the first plaintiff purchased 'A' schedule property from the second defendant under Exhibit A2 on 6/11/2002. Thereafter, the parents of the first plaintiff have executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff with regard to 'A' schedule property under Exhibit A3 on 27/4/2010. Hence, the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'A' schedule property.