UDAYATHAMMAL Vs. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1995, passed in A.S.No.61 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.03.1992 in O.S.No.118 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :- 3.1. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and as per the plan AGHR admeasuring three feet to be declared as common lane, in which two feet breadth marked as ABCR to be declared in favour of the plaintiff. Plot No.1 to 4, originally belong to one Jayaraman and Arumugam and purchased by the sale deed dated 21.12.1967, in which plot No.2 and 3 were purchased from the said Jayaraman by the plaintiff, and thereafter in plot No.4 the plaintiff constructed lavatrine and in plot No.1 and 2 constructed RCS roofed house. From 1968 onwards, she is residing in the said house and while constructing the house in plot No.1 to maintain southern side wall of her house, two feet lane was left out by her as set back area, which is marked as ABCR in the plan annexed to the plaint. While being so, the defendants 1 to 3 are residing in the southern side of her house situated in plot No.1. There is a three feet lane, in which two feet belong to the plaintiff and one feet belongs to the defendants. Now, the defendants renovated their house and constructed a new house encroaching two feet lane belongs to the plaintiff on the southern side of the plaintiff's house. Likewise in the plaint plan marked as DC, is a boundary for both plaintiff and defendants. On the northern side of the boundary line DC, the plaintiff constructed lavetrine and southern side, their fencing is situated . In fact, the lavetrine was there from the year 1968 onwards and as such the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the area marked as CDEF and the property marked in the lane as ARHG to be declared in favour of the plaintiff and seeking permanent injunction.