RAMU; RAJI Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants who suffered a decree for permanent injunction, which came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.246/1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint 'A' schedule property and her use of plaint 'B' schedule property as an access to reach plaint 'A' schedule property. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff was based on her contention that she was the absolute owner of plaint 'A' schedule property and the plaint 'B' schedule property was a public passage in natham poramboke.

(2.) The appellants/defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit 'B' schedule property form part of their house site over which they had put up houses and the place left by them for their convenience was now sought to be projected as a public passage by the respondent/plaintiff. Besides such contention, the appellants/defendants had also taken a plea that since the plaintiff's alleged right over the 'B' schedule property was disputed, the suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration was not maintainable.

(3.) The learned trial Judge, after trial, rejected the defence plea and upheld the plea of the respondent herein/ plaintiff with the result that she was granted a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for. The said decree dated 26.4.2005 was challenged by the appellants herein/defendants before the lower appellate court, namely the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.27/2006. The learned lower appellate judge, after hearing, re-appraised the evidence and dismissed the appeal confirming the decree passed by the trial court. The above said decree of the lower appellate court dated 18.1.2007 is the subject matter of challenge in the present second appeal.