CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the decree and judgment dtd. 8/1/2019 passed in A.S. No.13 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and decree dtd. 11/1/2017 passed in O.S. No.76 of 2011, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, the plaintiff is on appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit property belonged to one Ramalingam, S/o. Rathinam Pillai. The said Ramalingam executed a Will dtd. 11/6/1969 in favour of one Rajammal, wife of Vaidyalingam, giving life estate to her and thereafter absolute right to her son, who is the plaintiff. In the year 1998, the said Rajammal died and the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property as per the said Will. In the abovesaid Will, the existence of pathway measuring 15 feet east-west, 144 feet north-west is mentioned in the 'A' schedule property. The said pathway belongs to the plaintiff. However, the usage of the said pathway was given to the legal heirs of Ramalingam. After the death of the said Ramalingam, there was a partition among the legal heirs of Ramalingam on 31/7/1976. In the said partition, the shops situated in the northern side adjacent to the road were alloted to Kaliaperumal. The properties lying south to the above shops were allotted to the defendant herein. Thereafter, on 15/2/1994, the defendant and his brother Kaliaperumal exchanged the properties, through which the property lying on the east of the first item was given to the defendant. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the shops mentioned in the partition deed were demolished and a pucca building was constructed. The plaintiff is permanently residing at Chennai. Taking advantage of this, the defendant in the year 2005 has encroached upon the property of the plaintiff by constructing a wall. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice on 6/11/2010, for which the defendant sent a reply notice on 22/11/2010 with false allegation. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for the following reliefs: