AMIRTHAM Vs. LALITHAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.2232 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Munsif Court at Coimbatore, having succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.23 of 2004 has come before this Court. The suit is laid for mandatory injunction. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial court.

(2.) The facts leading to this case are in narrow compass: The suit property is described as a narrow strip of land measuring 2' X 58' running north to south. The properties of the plaintiff and the defendant lie adjacently, and the defendant's property lie to the east of plaintiff's property. The aforesaid suit property lies between these two properties and controversy now required to be addressed in this appeal is in whose property the suit property lies.

(3.) The defendant in her written statement would allege that her husband Devarajan had purchased the property on 18.02.1972 and that the suit property actually fall within her property, and is not part of plaintiff's property. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has put up a construction in her property up to her eastern boundary wall, and there is no property matching the description of the suit property that lie beyond her eastern wall. In fact, the construction in the plaintiff's property was put up by plaintiff's father Gopalsamy Naidu and when this defendant objected to the said construction that he had not left any vacant space beyond its eastern wall, he agreed that the defendant's husband Devarajan could construct his bathroom etc, touching his eastern wall. Both Gopalsamy Naidu and Devarajan entered into a written agreement in this regard. Accordingly, Gopalsamy Naidu was allowed to put up a construction touching the eastern wall of the plaintiff's residential building. On the demise of Devarajan, the property devolved on his widow, the defendant herein and their three sons, who are necessary parties to the proceedings.