JAYALAKSHMI ANANTHAKRISHNAN Vs. NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2007 passed in A.S.No.493 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.4), Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.10254 of 1996 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) According to the appellants, the first appellant's Late husband bought a plot bearing S.No.7/10, T.S.No.7, Block No.4 of Kasturi Bai Nagar, Adyar, Pallipattu Village of Saidapet Taluk, measuring an extent of 75' x 33', by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 07.04.1980. The first appellant's Late husband's cousin brother purchased the adjacent plot on the Northern side to the same measurement. The cousin brother sold out the plot to the second defendant without any passage for free ingress and egress to the said plot. The first appellant and her husband were employed at Bahrain and her husband died on 15.04.1991, after which, the first appellant returned to India and started construction of her house in the plot in question. But, to her shock and surprise, the first appellant/plaintiff found that the respondents/defendants have encroached the property to an extent of 11' x 33' on the Northern side of her plot. The plaintiff was further shocked to find that the respondents have also encroached another extent of 2'.9'' x 64' on the Eastern side of the plaintiff's property and is using and enjoying it along with the respondents' piece of land purchased by them for the purpose of his passage for free ingress and egress to his house on the backside of the plaintiff's house. Hence, the plaintiff is left only with 64' x 30' instead of 75' x 33' as per the Sale Deed. Hence, the first appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

(3.) It is the case of the respondents/defendants before the trial Court that they have not trespassed into the plaintiff's property in question. According to the respondents/defendants, the first respondent's wife's Plot No.17-A was not provided with any passage from road for her ingress and egress to her Plot either in the Sale Deed dated 31.07.1985 or in the earlier Sale Deed dated 07.04.1980 and, thus, the first respondent's wife entered into an Agreement with neighbouring Plot owners (Plot No.17/1 to 4 and Plot No.17-B) for her free access to her property through a 10' passage running from 8th Main Road to Plot No.17-B. It is the further case of the first respondent's wife that she has got drainage connection, water connection, electricity supply, etc., through the said 10 feet passage exclusively owned by the said owner of Plot No.17/B from the year 1985.