P NATARAJAN Vs. S VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 250/1993 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Salem. The defendant in O. S. No. 235/1984 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Salem, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THIS appeal is against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint 'c' schedule property, a lane, which is marked as A B C D in the rough sketch-Ex. A. 4. The averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars in brief are as follows:-2 (a) The 1st plaintiff is the wife of late S. Sanrangapani Naidu. The said Sarangapani Naidu purchased the 'a' Schedule property under a sale deed, dated 1. 9. 1965. Soon after the death of Sarangapani Naidu, his heirs, viz. 1st plaintiff, his widow and his sons, the 2nd plaintiff, S. Ravendran and S. Govarthanan entered into a partition and the A Schedule property under a partition, dated 27. 3. 1982. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 got the entire 'b' Schedule properties for their shares in the partition and so they have become co-owners in respect of the 'b' Schedule proeprties has been described as 'a' Schedule. The 'b' Schedule fell to the share of the said Ravendran and S. Goverthanan. 2 (b) The defendant is the owner of the property north of the property of the plaintiffs. The defendant has started demolishing his southern wall obviously with a view to put up construction by putting up pillars. The plaintiffs have no objection for the defendant for putting up any construction with his limits, without any infringing or encroaching or creating any obstruction over any portion of the property of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have taken the photographs of the present physical features. The defendants are not amenable for any reasonable course despite persuasion. He has been threatening the plaintiffs with dire consequences if they dare to question him in putting up his construction. 2 (c) In fact, on 16. 2. 1983, the defendant categorically stated that the would demolish southern wall entirety including the doorway of the plaintiffs put up in the plaint 'c' Schedule property noted in the rough sketch as A B C D appended to the plaint. It will be seen that the plaint

(3.) SCHEDULE property is a small lane with door way with a pit for storing cauvery water and step leading to a lane. There are windows of not less than 50 years old facing the lane of the plaintiffs, with entries and passages from the lane A B C D. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over any portion of A B C D mentioned in C Schedule property. The acts of the defendant, the plaintiffs gather, is calculated to obstruct light and air being the easementary right coming from the northern side to which easementary rights, the plaintiff perfected their right by prescription and prior to the their predecessors-in-title have been enjoying the easementary right of light and air coming from the nrothern side. The defendants started denying the title of the plaintiff to the plaint C Schedule property and attempting to put up pillars encroaching upon the plaint C Schedule property being A B C D lane. Hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain him and his men from in any manner interfering with his possession in the plaint C schedule property.