The main legal point established is the determination of ownership and right over a common passage and the significance of physical measurements in resolving property disputes.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.133 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiffs, who got a decree for mandatory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property which is a comman passage, but lost their defence before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:

The suit is for an order of mandatory injunction for removal of a new construction put up by the first defendant in the suit property which is marked as "AEFD" a common passage and for an order of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit property situate at door No.2, Krishnapuram Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094 through registered Documents 5231/80 and 5233/80 respectively from defendants 2 to

8 . As per these documents, there is a common passage measuring north to south on the eastern and western side 93 feet and east to west on the northern and southern side 10 feet as shown in the plans annexed to the plaint. The said common passage belongs to the first and second plaintiffs and not defendants 2 to 8. From the date of purchase by the plaintiffs, they have been in use and enjoyment of the said common passage.

2a) The first defendant encroached the common passage by way of constructing a compound wall and gate. At the time of encroachment, the plaintiffs personally informed and requested the first defendant not to construct any compound wall or gate in the common passage which belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 8 as per the said documents. Even though the defendants 2 to 8 are also having right over the said common passage, they did not protest the said encroachment and construction of compound wall and gate by the first defendant in the said place more specifically explained in the plaint schedule or in the sketch. The defendants 2 to 8 had colluded with the first defendant, with an abundant caution, the defendants have impleaded as Defendants 2 to 8 as party in the suit. The first defendant had constructed a compound wall and gate in the common passage encroaching 5 and 6" north to south on the eastern and western side and 10 east to west on northern and southern side, that is to say, the land covered by"AEFD". The first defendant has no right whatsoever to encroach in the common passage and put up new construction, viz., compound wall and gate. The plaintiffs issued notices through their advocate on 6. 1985 to the first defendant and was replied by the first defendant on 20.6.1985 with frivolous allegtions . The plaintiffs also issued notices to defendants 2 to 8 on 210. 1985 except 4th defendant, defendants 2,3 and 5 to 8 had refused to accept the notice. Even after the receipt of the notice, the fourth defendant has not chosen to send any reply. Hence the suit.

.3. The first defendant in his written statement would contend that with the malafide intention of causing hardship and inconvenience to this defendant, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. This defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No.2/A, Krishnapuram Street, Choolaimedu, Madras comprised in Block No.21, S.No.73/Part present TS.No.73/2 with right over the common passage. This defendant has constructed the building well within their property and she is in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs are not in use and enjoyment of the common passage. It is not correct to say that this defendant encroached on the common passage as alleged in the plaint. At the time of constructing the compound wall and gate, the plaintiffs have not raised any objection. The plaintiffs are not the owners of the common passage and the defendants 2 to 8 are the absolute owners. The defendants 2 to 8 have not colluded with this defendant in putting up the compound wall and the gate. The plaintiffs had no right in respect of the suit property