The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's determination of encroachment into the common road/pathway and the granting of reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1997, passed in A.S.No.43 of 1997, on the file of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris, modifying the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1996, passed in O.S. No.219 of 88, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sale deed in her favour, bearing document no.1480 of 1978 situated in old S.No.4215/2B New R.S.No.4215/2B2 and the said property was purchased by the plaintiff, with specific boundaries and put in possession and enjoyment of the same and the plaintiff has constructed a house in the suit property and paying necessary tax in respect of the same and the defendant is the adjacent owner of the suit property on the western side and he has no manner of right, title or interest in the land belonging to the plaintiff. While so, the defendant recently demolished his old building and trying to put up the construction without leaving any space from the boundary of the plaintiff nor getting sanction from the municipality and thereby attempted to encroach in the right of way on the south of the suit schedule property and the defendant also trying to put up a staircase on the right of way, measuring 10 feet in breadth and 41 feet length, leading from Ottley road and ending at the plaintiff's boundary and the defendant, subsequent to the filing of the suit, had also put up stair case and steps, encroaching on the suit pathway and hence, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiff has purchased an extent of 00.03-4/16 of land vide document no.1480 of 1978. In fact the suit schedule property was a potato godown, originally belonging to one K.Joghee gowder and K. Kali gowder. On 04.4.64, the plaintiff had purchased the land from one Lourdu mary and Lourdu mary had purchased the same from K. Kali gowder and Lourdu mary was entitled to only an extent of 00.02-14/16 of land in R.S.No. 4215/2 of Ootacamund town and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that she has purchased an extent of 00.03-4/16 acres is incorrect and the plaintiff's vendor had not purchased the right of way from her vendor and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right of way, based on her purchase and the plaintiff, at no point of time, used or enjoyed the alleged right of way from Ottley road, where the defendant has constructed stair case within his boundary limit and it is false to state that the defendant, without any necessary plan had put up structure in the right of way and on the other hand, the plaintiff has got right of way on the eastern side of her property from time immemorial and hence, the plaintiff cannot prevent the defendant to enjoy the property to which he his legally entitled to and hence, the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff should not be granted.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked and on the side of the defendant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B7 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made and also on the basis of the personal inspection of the suit property done by the trial Court, it is found that the trial Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, only in respect of the wooden planks and fence put up to an extent of 0.50 meters, on the south of the defendant's property and accordingly, granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved