Grant of declaration of title set aside.

1. Theabove second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3. 1989 made in A.S.No.15 of 1987 by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 29. 1986 made in O.S.No.115 of 1983 by the Court of District Munsif, Ranipet.

2. Adverting to the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair, what comes to be known is that it is a suit filed by the respondent herein against the deceased first appellant herein before the trial court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and act in bridging the fallen portion of wall ‘AB’ marked in the plan and for costs. The suit property is a house bearing D.No.33, Jagannatha Mudaliar Street, Arcot.

3. In the plaint filed before the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff alleged that she owns a total length East to West 33 ½ yards including the Western wall shown as ‘NL’ in the rough plan and it is very many decades old and still in existence and likewise there is a Northern wall extending East to West from the road side to the Western wall NL end and between portions ‘AB’ marked in the plaint plan and that as there had been wreckage, the plaintiff arranged to bridge the fallen portions, but the deceased first appellant/defendant and her man unduly prevent and interfere with the absolute rights of the plaintiff and hence the suit.

4. The deceased first appellant/defendant filed a written statement before the trial court thereby besides generally denying the allegations of the plaint, she submitted that the suit property is vague and indefinite in nature and devoid of particulars; that the plan relied upon by the plaintiff is not pertaining to the property according to the sale deed dated 23. 1948 or on the basis of the will relied upon by her or on the basis of 12. 1974 settlement deed; that the notice issued by the Settlement Officer of Chingleput is also not to the disputed property, as alleged in the plaint plan and the same is not binding on the defendant since she is not a party to those proceedings; that the property described in the deeds filed by the plaintiff is not pertaining to the disputed AB suit property and the plaint plan is drawn as a self serving document to grab the property of the defendant, which is in her possession and enjoyment till date; that irrespective of measurements, the defendant is in enjoyment of her property as her vendors were, on the basis of boundaries mentioned in her deeds and thus the defendant has perfected her title to the property purchased by her as per boundaries by enjoying the same for more than a statutory period; that there was no wall at any time as described in the plaint plan marked as AB; that the plaintiff wants to annex the Zone marked portion of the plan filed by the defendant by trying to building a new wall; that previously there was a wall which was built in mud from South to North in order to demarcate the plaintiffs backyard and the defendants backyard, which in the course of time fallen; that the plaintiff wants to construct a new wall in AB portion of the plan only after obtaining a temporary injunction as a covering protection to her unlawful act and misdeeds; that the plaintiffs property and defendants property are in different streets and by their way of backyard alone, they are neighbours; that the plaintiff has not applied for any municipal permission to make any minor repairs or construct any wall; that the plaintiff is trying to trespass into the defendants backyard; that the question of inconvenience by granting a temporary injunction is only to the defendant because the plaintiff wants to annex the property of the defendant over which she has no right or title; that at any time, the plaintiff was not in possession of the defendants backyard; that the plaintiff is estopped by her own conduct from filing this suit by allowing the defendant to enjoy