GEEGEE BAI Vs. U RAJAMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 made in A.S.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Arakkonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 made in O.S.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.

(2.) The appellants are legal heirs of one K.Varadappa Naidu, the defendant in O.S.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. They are challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration to declare his easementary right over the suit channel to take water to irrigate plaint A Schedule lands through the channel in between points "ABC" as shown in the plaint plan and which is described in the plaint B Schedule; for a mandatory injunction against the defendant/father of the appellants, directing him to restore the channel obliterated by him in between points "ABC" as shown in the plaint plan to its original position and which is described in C Schedule and for a direction to the defendant to pay to the respondent the future damages that will be sustained by the respondent on due separate enquiry with regard to it under Order XX Rule 12 of C.P.C as damages caused to him for obliteration of C Schedule channel by the defendant.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments in the plaint. According to the defendant, the plan filed by the respondent is not correct. It is different from F.M.B plan. The partition mentioned by the respondent is correct, but there is no existence of mamool channel. Selli ammal sold the property settled on her by her father, Chinna Kondama Naidu to the defendant by deed of sale dated 06.12.1988 and there is no mentioning of ABC channel in the said sale deed. The respondent is entitled to only 15 cents in Survey No.469/4B, but K.Chinnappa Naidu sold 17 cents to the respondent. The defendant has right over 1 cent in the said Survey number.