L.K. SRIDHAR Vs. S. RAVICHANDRAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent this Original Side Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.A.No.680 of 2017 in C.S.No.657 of 2012 against the 1st respondent/Plaintiff prayed for an order of ad-interim direction in any manner interfering with the construction of compound wall in the Suit Scheduled Property, vide impugned order dated 23.12.2018, the learned Judge has granted permission to the applicant/defendants 1 and 2 to construct joint compound wall on the Southern and Eastern side of the property and also made it clear that they cannot claim any right on the basis of the permission which has been granted and further observed that the compound wall should have a gate, the gate should be locked and the key shall be deposited in this Court and none of the parties shall have a excess to the property and challenging the legality of the same, the plaintiff /1st respondent has filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. P. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/plaintiff has invited the attention of this Court to the plaint averments and would submit that the title of the property has been traced, and his mother Mrs. K. Vimala Devi had settled the property in favour of the 1st respondent / Plaintiff by a Settlement Deed dated 25.02.2004, registered as Document No.765 of 2004 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and however, the respondents 1 and 2 by changing the patta and other revenue records, started claiming illegal ownership over the suit property and by way of abundant caution, the appellant / plaintiff apart from seeking a relief, he is the absolute owner of the property also prayed for delivery of possession and other consequential relief. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that the learned Judge failed to take into consideration of the fact the ownership of the property in favour of the plaintiff and has come to erroneous conclusion as if the respondents 1 and 2/the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and hence, prays for interference.