ANBAZHAGAN Vs. NETHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit have come up with this Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court passed in A.S.No.3 of 2017, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.1166 of 2007, dismissing the suit.

(2.) The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff and the appellants herein are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) The suit was filed on the pleadings, inter alia, that suit A-Schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff's family and it was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his elder brother Boopathy through a registered partition deed dtd. 20/3/1970 in which western half of the building described under C-Schedule was allotted to the share of Boopathy and the Eastern half of the building described under G-Schedule was allotted to the share of the plaintiff with common pathway on the eastern side. Later on, the plaintiff and Boopathy had rented out the A-schedule property to an industry and on 31/3/1999, Boopathy and the plaintiff entered into an Exchange Deed, in which the western half of the building was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and from the date of exchange, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire A-Schedule property. Property tax receipts stand in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereafter, rented out the entire building to M/s.Harsha Packaging and the electricity service connection stands in the name of M/s.Harsha Packaging. There is no dispute with regard to title of the property . The defendants are the brothers and eastern side neighborers. In the year 2005, during construction of their storeyed house, the defendants set up a false claim that the western boundary extended up to 2 feet in the pathway and lodged a police complaint. Thereafter, the defendants approached the revenue authorities for measurement of the property. Accordingly, the surveyor visited the suit property on 27/2/2006 and he found that the pathway was within the boundary of the plaintiff. However, the defendants fixed three windows on the western side to overlook the pathway and, therefore, the plaintiff was forced to lodge a police complaint on 17/8/2006. The Municipal Planning Officer, in fact, directed the defendants to close the windows. Despite the gate fixed in the pathway, the defendants attempted to cause disturbance to the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff is not denied. The disputed pathway, which is shown as B-Schedule, is part of A-Schedule and the plaintiff has prescribed title by adverse possession regarding the pathway and, hence, the suit for permanent injunction.