C RAVIKUMAR Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The S.A.Nos.793 of 2003 and 794 of 2003 are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000 passed in A.S.Nos.99 of 1999 and 100 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 26.03.1999 passed in O.S.Nos.599 of 1992 and 647 of 1992 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) O.S.No.599 of 1992 has been laid for declaration and permanent injunction. Similarly, O.S.No.647 of 1992 has been laid for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The case of the appellants in brief is that the suit property belongs to the appellants by way of a registered partition deed dated 09.09.1986 executed amongst the appellants and their paternal uncles, sisters and mother and by way of the said partition deed, the suit property was allotted to them as item number 7 in the B schedule property and originally the suit property was purchased by one P.Appavoo, by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.06.1983 executed by one Padakathudayar and others and thereafter the suit property was jointly enjoyed along with other family properties and accordingly, by way of the partition deed above stated, the appellants were allotted the suit property along with other properties and it is only the appellants, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property exercising full ownership over the same and the respondent claims to have purchased the adjacent property in survey number 8/3B1 on the south of the suit property and the respondent instituted the suit against the appellants in O.S.No.599 of 1992 claiming a false right of channel for taking drainage water through the suit property and thereby attempted to lay the channel in the suit property and in this connection, the appellants preferred the complaint with the police and the parties were referred to civil action and the respondent has no right to take the drainage water through the suit property and however, the respondent is attempting to interfere with the appellants' right to the possession and enjoyment of the suit property illegally and hence the appellants are constrained to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.