LAWS(MAD)-2018-12-30

S V KRISHNAMOORTHI Vs. SUBRAMANI MUDALIAR

Decided On December 13, 2018
S V Krishnamoorthi Appellant
V/S
Subramani Mudaliar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 139 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur, are the appellants herein. The said suit came up for consideration before the learned District Munsif, Ambur and by Judgment dated 21.04.1997, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed A.S.No. 21 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur. By Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2001, the Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit had been filed for a declaration for use of an alley measuring 11 feet by 42 feet on the south of the property of the defendant and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody acting under them from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the said alley.

(3.) It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and several other properties originally belonged to Kuppana Mudaliar. Thereafter, the properties were inherited by his son Narayanasamy Mudaliar. A partition was effected on 15.06.1927 between Narayanasamy Mudaliar and his son Venkatasamy Mudaliar. The plaintiff is the son of Venkatasamy Mudaliar. Thereafter, a further partition was effected among Venkatasamy Mudaliar, the plaintiff and the brother of the plaintiff S.V.Govindarajan on 16.06.1957. The suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be in enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant had a house and vacant land to the east of the property of the plaintiff. The southern portion of the defendant's property, was an alley measuring 11 feet in breadth and 42 feet in length. This alley reached the Panchayat road. It had been claimed that the alley was in existence for a number of years. The defendant attempted to close the alley and obstruct the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of right to enjoy the alley and for permanent injunction protecting such enjoyment.