SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The plaintiff is the appellant. Suit filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal, the lower appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has preferred the second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that his father Ariaputhri Padayatchi purchased 7 kuzhies 8 veesams from one Muthukrishnan on 27.09.1981. He sold 5 kuzhies of land on the northern side to Kannan on03.09.1981, who is the first defendant in the suit and retained 2 kuzhies 8 veesams on the southern side with him. That extent of 2 kuzhies and 8 veesams is the subject matter of this appeal.

(3.) Further case of the plaintiff is that during the life time of Ariaputhri Padayatchi, family partition took place and the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff vide partition deed dated 25.08.1994. Since then the plaintiff is exclusively enjoying the suit property. While so, the defendants who are the adjacent land owners are trying to encroach into the suit property slowly. To prevent that he fenced the property on 02.08.1997. The defendants dismantled the fence. Police complaint was given by the plaintiff, wherein the police advised him to seek remedy before the Civil Court. Hence, the suit.