KULLAMMAL Vs. K PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND appeal is by the second defendant who got herself impleaded in O.S. No.98 of 1979, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff, first respondent herein, was against the Cuddalore Municipality represented by its Commissioner. It was a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the Municipality to remove the obstruction caused by the appellant herein, by constructing a hut in front of the plaintiff s house. THE allegation was that the construction caused obstruction to his access to the highway, and that the construction is in a poramboke 1and belonging to the Municipality. It was averred that the appellant is a trespasser, and that it was without permission of the Municipality, she has constructed the hut. Even though various demands were made to the Municipality to remove the hut, the Municipality did not take any action. Hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking a mandatory injunction to take steps to remove the unauthorised construction.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by her, the second defendant has stated that she and her husband were in occupation of the hut in question for years together, and they have been paying tax to the Municipality. The allegation that the hut is in a poramboke land, is denied. According to her, she and her husband have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the statutory period and have prescribed title by adverse possession. She has further stated that when her husband constructed the hut, the plaintiff did not raise any objection and, therefore, he is estopped from contending that the construction is objectionable.