SUBRAMANIAN Vs. PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has come after remand by the Supreme court. The defendants are the appellants. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession, mandatory injunction and costs. The suit property is the northern east‑west wall in the A‑schedule property and the two feet space on the northern side of the said wall.

(2.) THE plaintiff claimed that the B‑schedule property is his exclusive property. THE A-Schedule property was purchased by him with the wall and about four years back, when the plaintiff and his family members were away from the property, the defendants had stealthily put up hookstones on the northern side of the east‑west wall of the plaintiff and have put up asbestos thalvaram sloping towards north. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to the two feet north‑south space that has been left by his predecessors‑in‑title for tile purpose of maintaining the northern side of the AB wall. THE defendants have no right to put up any construction much less to put up hookstones in AB wall before the suit was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants would submit that the cross‑objection filed by the respondent is not maintainable since the finding regarding tile two feet space has become final; the appellate Court as well as the trial Court failed to see that the Suit wall was a common wall; the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted because tile plaintiff came to court with a delay and the licence granted to the defendants to put up the hooks was an irrevocable licence.