K VIJAYA Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2005 made in A.S.No.27 of 2003 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.319 of 1998, dated 27.11.2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kumbokonam.

(2.) The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.319 of 1998 on the file of the trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession, wherein the present respondents have been shown as plaintiffs.

(3.) It is averred in the amended plaint that the suit property was purchased by the father of the 1st plaintiff, by name Gurusamy Doss through a registered sale deed, dated 11.02.1952. After the death of Gurusamy Doss, his wife by name Jayalakshmi was enjoying the same and she in turn given the suit property to the 1st plaintiff through a registered Will, dated 08.12.1995, while she was in sound disposal state of mind. The 2nd plaintiff is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and younger brother of Jayalakshmi. The said Jayalakshmi died on 26.04.1996 and after her death, the 1st plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property and she alone has been paying house tax for the suit property. There is a path lane of three feet on the southern side of the plaintiffs' house, which belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendants are neighbours residing on the southern side of the suit property. When that is the position, on 16.05.1998 the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In this regard, a police complaint was given and as the matter is civil in nature, the plaintiffs were advised to approach the civil court. Thereafter, on 07.06.1998, the defendants have tried to block the southern side path lane with a view to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the plaintiffs filed suit and an application for temporary injunction and interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and extended a portion of their house superstructure and annexed the southern side wall of the plaintiffs property and also put up latrine to a small extent of the southern side of the suit property. Immediately, the 2nd plaintiff filed a complaint before the East Police Station, Kumbakonam on 11.01.1999 against the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief as stated above.