D.S.ROBERT JESUDOSS Vs. F.ANTONY CAROLOINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who lost the appeal before the first appellate court has filed the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 3 x 10 ft. lane, which is part of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court earlier decreed the suit, and in the appeal filed by the defendants, the lower appellate court has reversed the findings and dismissed the suit. Now, challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :- The plaintiff's father one D.Sigamani was in possession and enjoyment of the extent of 832 sq.ft. of land and also constructed a house therein and residing there for the past 30 years, and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property with right, title and interest eversince 1954. By virtue of settlement deed dated 25.04.1984, he has settled the property in favour of plaintiff. The defendants are having the property adjacent to the plaintiff's property and there is 3 x 10 ft. lane facing on the northern side of the suit property. The defendants are the owners of the property to an extent of 920 sq.ft., and they have no right or title over the said lane, and only the father of plaintiff has been enjoying the lane for more than 60 years. No documents have been filed by the defendants to show that they are the owners of the above suit lane and only, the plaintiff has an exclusive right over the disputed lane. Now, the defendants are trying to construct a wall in order to obstruct the pathway, and the plaintiff has raised an objection that there was a pathway existing. Since the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's right of using the pathway, the present Suit has been filed.