ABDUL JABBAR Vs. AYISAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the concurrent judgments of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur in O. S. No. 330 of 1988 and the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A. S. No. 73 of 1990 and particularly against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in the above said appeal, the defendant viz. , one Abdul Jabbar has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff viz. , Ayisammal filed O. S. No. 330 of 1988 against the defendant Abdul Jabbar on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's lane measuring 2x70 feet lying on the southern side of the plaintiff's house bearing door No. 1-10a within the total extent of 12 cents at Athikadai Village, Kudavasal Taluk covered by R. S. No. 45-2a. The brief allegations in the plaint are to the effect that the above said plaintiff's house was previously a thatched one and later it was constructed as a tiled one and its door number is 1-10a and that the said house is at Rahmania Street and it is facing west and that the defendant's house is lying on the south of the plaintiff's house and it is also facing west and that in between the said houses, there is a disputed lane measuring 2x70 feet for which the plaintiff has chosen to file the suit by saying that the defendant has attempted to trespass and interfere with the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff upon the lane and that the lane is forming part of the plaintiff's house and it exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's father put up the tiled house after demolishing the thatched house after leaving 2 feet space in breadth and 70 feet space in length for the purpose of convenient enjoyment on the southern portion of the plaintiff's house and that the defendant has no manner of right or interest upon the said lane.

(3.) THE written statement filed by the defendant in brief is as follows:-The plaintiff should prove that she is the owner of 12 cents and that the fact that 2x70 feet space was left out while putting up the tiled house. In fact, the said lane does not belong to the plaintiff absolutely and the defendant as well as the plaintiff left out one feet each between the houses for the common use of both. It is being used as common lane by both the parties. So, half of the lane belongs to the defendant and it is in common enjoyment. The plaintiff has filed the suit vexatiously without adopting the decision of the Jamath in the village panchayat. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.