SANKAR Vs. NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 made in A.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 made in O.S.No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. The respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from encroaching the B,C,D lane, not to demolish the stair case of the respondent or in any way interfering with the possession of the respondent; for mandatory injunction to remove the cement platform measuring 2 1/2 x 5 feet and to restore the demolished stair case, failing which the same has to be done through Advocate Commissioner. According to the respondent, the land in which the suit property is situated belongs to Naganadha Swamy temple and the building belongs to one Sachidhanandham and others through a Will dated 25.10.1975. The respondent purchased the lease hold right and the building from Sachidhanandham and others by the deed of sale dated 19.10.2006 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,05,000/-. 2(a).From the date of purchase, the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the land and building. He is paying the property tax and electricity charges. The respondent has let out the property and is collecting the rent. The respondent has filed a plan, showing storied house, backyard and triangular lane shown as A,B,C,D,E,F. B,C,D, triangular lane is the suit property. In B,C,D lane, stair case of the respondent is situated. The appellant without any title to B,C,D lane, trespassed and demolished a portion of the stair case and has put up the cement platform, preventing the respondent from using the said lane. The appellant is threatening the respondent that he would demolish entire stair case. The appellant is influential person having both money and muscle power and hence the respondent filed the suit.

(3.) The appellant filed written statement and denied the averments that respondent is owner of the B,C,D lane. On the other hand, it is the respondent who encroached the property of the appellant in the portion referred to as B,D. The respondent has no right or possession in the portion B,C,D. The appellant has got his sunshade along with the portion C,D till the end of the building towards road. The appellant did demolish the stair case. It is correct to state that appellant put up the platform in the front portion of B,C lane. The said portion belongs to the appellant. It is only the respondent who is trying to encroach the portion of the property belonging to the appellant.