G KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016 made in A.S.No.310 of 2014 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 made in O.S.No.10979 of 2010 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The defendant is the appellant herein. He succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the I Appellate Court. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Schedule B mentioned premises and permanent injunction restraining the appellant from in any way dealing with or encumbering, alienating the Schedule B property.

(3.) According to the first respondent, appellant is her brother. Their mother Yesodhammal was allotted a property bearing plot No.153, Door No.25, Sadasivam Street, Purusaiwakkam, Chennai 600 007, measuring an extent of 1250 Sq.Ft, described in A Schedule property by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board. After death of their mother, Yesodhammal, the first respondent and appellant gave a letter to the second respondent for partition of the property. The second respondent has partitioned the property into Plot No.153A, measuring 625 Sq.Ft and 153B measuring 525 Sq.Ft and left common pathway of 100 Sq.Ft from East to West. Plot No.153A was allotted to appellant and 153B was allotted to the first respondent. The sketch was annexed with regard to sub division and separate allotment orders were issued to the appellant and first respondent. The first respondent was using the common pathway from the date of allotment. She has put up RCC roofing and using upstairs for several years. When she wanted to put up doors on the ground floor of the pathway, the appellant prevented her from putting up any door or window. The appellant has constructed a gate at the entrance of common pathway and prevented the ingress and egress of the first respondent through the common pathway. The appellant with rowdy elements, came and threatened the first respondent with dire consequences. The first respondent gave a complaint to the police. The first respondent issued notice dated 16.09.2010 to the appellant. The appellant sent a reply dated 18.09.2010, containing false averments. On 20.09.2010, the appellant came with rowdy elements and threatened the first respondent. The first respondent lodged a complaint to the police on 21.09.2010 and filed the suit.