M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE brief facts leading to these two appeals are that v. p. kedilaya (referred to as the 'plaintiff hereinafter) is the owner in possession of site bearing No. 45 situated at judicial colony, more fully described in the schedule attached to the plaint. R. h. raddi (referred to as the 'defendant' hereinafter) is the owner in possession of site No. 46 situated on the northern side of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained a sanction plan and also licence to construct a house in site bearing No. 45 on 20-10-1987 and put up the building as per the sanction plan and he celebrated the house warming of his house in the year 1988. Along with the house he had also put up the staircase on the northern side of his house and also put up a compound wall separating the site nos. 45 and 46. In the year 1997, r. h. raddi/defendant obtained sanction plan to construct a house in his site. At that time, it was noticed that the plaintiff had put up the compound wall encroaching the portion of his site and he has also unauthorisedly put up the staircase violating the sanction plan. Therefore, it appears that the defendant approached the bda for demolitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document