The main legal point established is that the suit for encroachment was barred by limitation as the construction was completed in 1988, and the suit was filed in 1995.

1. The Appellant herein/Plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.3350/ 1995 for a Judgement and Decree against the Respondent herein/defendant for removal of encroachment of 40 feet North to South 1 feet East to West on the Western side of the house of the Plaintiff and ending with North of her property and for costs. The Respondent herein/defendant has filed the above Cross Objection against the finding made in the Judgement and Decree dated 25.2.2000 passed in AS.No.102/1999 by the lower Appellate Court and filed the above CMP for reception of additional documents.

2. The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:-

The suit property originally belonged to one Pushpavathi Ammal, the mother of the Defendant. She sold the same to one Thulasi Bai under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1984. The Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Thulasi Bai under a registered sale deed dated 27.9.1973. Pushpavathi Ammal had conveyed 1710 sq.ft. to Thulasi Bai. The Plaintiff had obtained plan sanction for new constructions. The original owner Pushpavathi Ammal also owned the house bearing Door No.18 which is situated on the West of the house of the Plaintiff. After the demise of Pushpavathi Ammal, the Defendant has occupied the said house. Pushpavathi Ammal had a tiled house measuring 35 ft. from the road and she had left 2 feet passage towards north. During her life, time she did not have proper sanitary facilities. Therefore, the Plaintiff in the year 1980 put up a parapet wall measuring 40 feet. In the month of February 1993, the Defendant without obtaining any permission from appropriate authorities had completed construction in Door No.18. The Defendant had encroached the suit property illegally. The Plaintiff had questioned the illegal encroachment made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff had also convened several panchayats, but there was no fruitful result. The Defendant had encroached 40 feet from South to North and one feet from East to West. Hence, the suit has been filed.

3. In the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, it is averred as follows:-

The suit property was not described properly. The original owner Pushpavathy Ammal had purchased the suit property and its adjoining property from one Chockalinga Mudaliar. Subsequently, she constructed another building in the same site. In order to discharge a mortgage loan, the mother of the Defendant had sold one building to S.Thulasi Bai under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.64. As per the recitals of the said sale deed, Pushpavathi Ammal is entitled to use the lavatory and also the well in the premises. The mother of the Defendant should construct a compound wall at her cost within two years from 29.11.1964. She also executed a settlement deed in favour of the Defendant. The Defendant had applied for the plan sanction for making addition and alteration in the existing building. The Defendant had constructed her buildings in the year 1988. The Plaintiff has been giving unnecessary trouble to the Defendant. With a view to harass the Defendant, the Plaintiff has come forward with the present suit. The Plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief against the Defendant and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to A6 were marked and the Plaintiff examined herself as PW.1. On behalf of the Defendant, Ex.B1 to B4 were marked and the Defendant was examined as DW.1. The report and the plan of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C1 and C2.

5. On consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed as against the same by the Plaintiff was also dismissed, confirming the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court. As against the same, this Second Appeal has been filed.

6. This Second Appeal has been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether the courts below are right in relying upon Ex.B3