NARAYANASAMY NAICKER Vs. KOPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was laid by the appellant herein against the respondents herein for the following reliefs: (i) for a declaration that the property having a measurement of north-south 3 feet and east-west 60 feet lying on the north of the northern wall of the appellant's house shown as 'ab' in the plaint plan, more fully described in schedule-II annexed to the plaint and shown as 'a,b,b1,b2' in the plaint plan was the common property of the appellant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants; (ii) for a perpetual injunction not to prevent the appellant/plaintiff from having access to the said property through the gate marked as 'dw' in the plaint plan available on the western wall of the defendants' house to reach the second schedule property for the purpose of effecting repairs and maintaining the above said 'ab' wall; (iii) for a perpetual injunction not to put up any structure with roofs made out tin or other materials in the said property described in schedule-II; and (iv) for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the sheds with tin roofs constructed by the respondents/defendants after the filing of the suit.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's case, he had left a space of 1? feet on the north of his northern wall and likewise the defendants had also left a space of an equal breadth making the total space in between the plaintiff's wall and the southern wall of the defendants' property to 3 feet. The said 3 feet space, according to the plaintiff, was the common property of the plaintiff and the defendants and as per the agreement dated 20. 09. 1982, the said property was agreed to be left for common use of the plaintiff and the defendants.