MUTHU GOUNDER Vs. MURUGAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals S.A.No.480 of 2007 and S.A.No.481 of 2007 arise out of a common judgment pronounced by both the Courts below. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties shall be referred as in the cause title of S.A.No.480 of 2007.

(2.) The first suit came to be presented by the defendant in O.S.No.507 of 1996. The said suit had been filed for a bare injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the property from one Krishnan / 2nddefendant for valuable consideration on 22/6/1979. He claimed that an extent of 20 cents was left out beyond the 25 cents purchased by him. According to him, he is in possession of the said 25 cents purchased from Krishnan and the 20 cents of Poramboke land, in all 45 cents. The boundaries, according to him, given in the sale deed refers to 45 cents though what was alienated, was only 25 cents. Since he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, he moved the Court for a bare injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 ie., his neighbour on the western side as well as his vendor, not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The solitary survey number involved in O.S.No.507 of 1996 is Dry Survey No.123/15B. A written statement was filed in O.S.No.507 of 1996 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.817 of 1996. He claimed ownership with respect to Survey Nos.123/15A, 123/15C, 123/14B, 123/14A and 123/15D. According to him, the plaintiff in O.S.No.507 of 1996 had trespassed into the property situated at Survey No.123/14B to an extent of 18 feet X 20 feet and that in the presence of panchayatdars, the plaintiff had assured that he will hand over possession and did not do so. Instead, he has come forth with the suit for injunction.

(3.) As a plaintiff in O.S.No.817 of 1996, his plea was that he is the owner of Survey No.123/14B which is full of tamarind trees, neem trees etc., He concedes that the defendant is the adjacent owner in Survey No.123/15B. It is his case that seven years prior to the suit ie., sometime around 1990, the defendant had encroached upon the property to an extent of 18 X 20 feet which he showed as 'A', 'B', 'C' in the plaint. According to him, the portions 'A', 'B' and 'C' belongs to the plaintiff and the encroachment made by the defendant is untenable and therefore, he filed a suit for declaration of his title and for mandatory injunction. The learned trial Judge took up the suit in O.S.No.817 of 1996 as the primary suit and O.S.No.507 of 1996 as the secondary suit. The reason for doing so is because larger relief has been claimed in in O.S.No.817 of 1996 as against the bare injunction suit in O.S.No.507 of 1996.