JANAKIAMMAL (DIED) Vs. MANJULA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.394 of 1985 are the appellants in S.A.No.873 of 1996. The first defendant in the said suit is the cross objector in Cross Objection No.84 of 2000.

(2.) O.S.No.394 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sathur, had been filed for declaration that the wall described in schedule 'A' of the plaint is the exclusive and common wall of the plaintiffs and second defendant and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the rods and fence put up over the 'B' schedule property, which was described as vacant land and for declaration that the 'B' schedule property, is a common path belonging to the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant. This suit had come up for consideration before the learned Principal District Munsif, Sathur, who by judgment dated 19.06.1990, decreed the suit with costs. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the first defendant filed A.S.No.138 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur. The learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, by judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994, had partly allowed the first appeal and the 'B' schedule, which was described as vacant land and which the trial Court had decreed as a common lane, was decreed to belong exclusively to the first defendant. Further, the relief of mandatory injunction granted by the trial Court to remove the rods fixed over the vacant land from the wall was set aside. The judgment of the trial Court regarding the declaration of title of the wall alone was upheld. Challenging that judgment, the plaintiffs had filed S.A.No.873 of 1996 insofar as the declaration with respect to the vacant land was concerned. The first defendant filed Cross Objection No.84 of 2000, challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court insofar as the declaration regarding the 'A' schedule was concerned.

(3.) Seven plaintiffs, who were the legal heirs of Kulavilangu Nadar, had filed the suit against the 1st defendant, Manjula Devi, 2nd defendant, Mallika and the 3rd defendant, Ayyachami Nadar, seeking a declaration that the 'A' schedule described in the plaint, which was a wall measuring East- West 19+ feet and North-South 1s feet, being the southern wall of D.No.145, Periya Pallivasal Street, Palayamkottai Town, is a exclusive wall of the plaintiffs and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant Manjula Devi to remove the rods fixed and the fence put up over the 'B' schedule property from the 'A' schedule wall and also for a declaration that the 'B' schedule property, which is the vacant land measuring East-West 15 feet and North-South 3 feet situated in between the house of the plaintiffs and the house of the third defendant on the south to the east of Periya Pallivasal Street and west of the house first defendant as a common lane.