A.SUBBRAYA GOUNDER Vs. K.PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The respondents herein filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their right to lay pipeline underneath the suit common pathway to take water to their land and for other reliefs. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendants have come by way of this second appeal.

(2.) According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the appellants/defendants are their Southern neighbours. There is a East West pathway on the Southern side of the defendants' property, which turns North on the Eastern side of defendants' property and reach the respondents'/plaintiffs' property. The suit property originally belongs to Karuppa Gounder's family and there was a partition in his family on 25/9/1970, under Ex.A1. The property of the respondents/plaintiffs was allotted to the share of One Ponnusamy Gounder son of Molagounder and grandson of Karuppa Gounder under B Schedule to the said Partition Deed. Thereafter, there was a partition under Ex.A2 on 28/3/2007 and the property of the respondents was allotted to the share of Ponnusamy Gounder's son Subramaniyan under B Schedule to the said Partition Deed. Subsequently, the first respondent purchased the suit property with an extent of 15 cents from Subramaniyan under Ex.A3 dtd. 25/7/2007. Thereafter, the first plaintiff sold 7 1/2 cents in the said property in favour of second plaintiff under Ex.A4 dtd. 13/9/2007. Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs claimed right over the entire 15 cents together with easement right to use the pathway on the Southern and Eastern side of the appellants'/defendants' property. It was further averred by the respondents that even in the Sale Deed executed by Subramaniyan in favour of the first plaintiff under Ex.A3, the vendees/plaintiffs were given right to lay pipeline underneath the pathway. When the respondents/plaintiffs attempted to lay pipeline underneath the pathway and take water to their house and industry, the same was opposed by the appellants. Therefore, the respondents were constrained to file the suit for bare injunction as mentioned above.

(3.) The appellants/defendants filed the written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that the suit for bare injunction filed by the respondents was not maintainable in the absence of prayer for declaration of their alleged easement right to lay pipeline. It was further averred by the appellants that as per the Partition Deeds dtd. 25/9/1970 and 28/3/2007which were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The respondents were not given any right to lay water pipeline underneath the suit pathway. In such circumstances, the respondents were not entitled to seek injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their alleged right to lay pipeline. It was also specifically averred by the appellants that the respondents were not co-owners of the suit pathway and they were entitled to enjoy the same only as a pathway and no right was conferred on them under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to lay water pipeline underneath the suit pathway. On these pleadings, the appellants sought for dismissal of the suit.