The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property rights under the Transfer of Property Act, rejection of claims of common ownership, prescriptive title, and easementary right, and the award of damages for unlawful demolition.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2000 passed in A.S.No.34 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.1997 passed in O.S.No.664 of 1989, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Thirukkovilur.

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

3. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages.

4. In brief, according to the plaintiff's case, the plaint A schedule property originally belong to the plaintiff's father Natesa mudaliar and was in his possession and enjoyment and the plaintiff's father sold the plaint A schedule property on 02.04.1930 to the third defendant's father Munusamy pillai and others and while selling the property by way of the above said sale deed, the plaintiff's father had sold the said property excluding the south wall situated on the southern side of the said property and therefore, only the portion situated to the north of the south wall had been sold by the plaintiff's father in the above mentioned sale deed and the said south wall measuring 2 feet width and 69 feet length is the B schedule property and the property purchased by Munusamy pillai has been shown as the A schedule, residing in the said property with his family members and presently being enjoyed by the defendants and the defendants' predecessors in title had accepted to put up a southern wall within the property purchased by them and till the said arrangement, had requested the plaintiff's father to rest the terraced tiles on the southern wall, for which permission was granted by the plaintiff's father. However, the defendant or their predecessor in interest had not put up or erected any separate wall on the southern side within their purchased property and while so, the plaintiff's father purchased the tiled house and the vacant site from one Mangaiammal, situated to the south of the B schedule property on 09.03.1957, by way of registered sale deed and thereafter during 1972, he put up a terraced house in the property, thereby, he had put up the terraced building on the northern side annexing or resting on the plaint B schedule property and accordingly, the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff had been enjoying the property purchased by them, by way of the above said sale deed including the plaint B schedule property and further the plaintiff had also purchased the property belonging to Uthirappan mudaliar and enjoying the same and thereby, the plaintiff had also prescribed the title by adverse possession and also got easementary right by prescription and the defendants have no of manner of right what so ever over the plaint B schedule property. While so, the defendants unlawfully demolished the terraced structure of the plaintiff by using crowbar and other weapons by unlawfully encroaching into the same and thereby, demolished the wall causing damage to the plaintiff quantified at Rs.3,000/- and with reference to the same, a police complaint had been lodged against the defendants and further a legal notice had also issued to the defendants and hence, the plaintiff had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that it is true that the plaint A schedule property was originally owned by the plaintiff's father Natesa mudaliar and that it has been purchased by the 3rd defendant's father on 02.04.1930 and it is false to state that the plaintiff's father had sold the property excluding the southern wall and it is false to state that the defendants' predecessors in interest had agreed to put up the southern wall within the property purchased by them and sought permission of the plaintiff's father to rest their terraced building on the plaint B schedule property and permission had been granted by the plaintiff's father. There is no such understanding or agreement between the parties. The plaint B schedule property is a common wal