1. One J.Vijayalakshmi and S.Ganesan are neighbours. They are owners of adjacent properties. S.Ganesan’s property lies on the Eastern side of Vijayalakshmi’s property.

2. A small strip of lane admeasuring 134.75 square feet or thereabouts between these two properties is the subject matter of this litigation, which commenced almost two decades ago. To be precise this litigation commenced on 15.07.1999, when J.Vijayalakshmi filed a suit in O.S.No.287 of 2002 on the file of 'District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli' (which shall herein after be referred to as 'Trial Court' for the sake of convenience and clarity), against S.Ganesan, his wife G.Kalavathi and S.Ganesan’s brother S.Ravi, arraying them as defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

3. Parties to this lis are referred to by their aforesaid ranks in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. In other words, 'Vijayalakshmi', who is 'sole respondent' in this second appeal before this Court, is referred to as 'plaintiff'. 'Ganesan, G.Kalavathi and S.Ravi', who are 'appellants 1, 2 and 3' respectively before this Court are referred to as 'defendants' collectively and 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant' respectively, whenever a reference is made individually.

4. The aforesaid strip of lane admeasuring 134.75 square feet or thereabouts, which is the subject matter of this litigation shall herein after be referred to as 'said lane' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

5. There is no dispute or disagreement between the parties that the said lane admeasures 110 feet lengthwise, ie., North - South. East - West breadth is 1 foot for about 11 feet length and thereafter, it is 1, feet wide for the remaining 99 feet. 1, x 99 = 123.75 square feet and when this added to 1X11=11 square feet, it adds up 134.75 square feet.

6. To have an absolute clarity about the topography as well as the said lane, this Court deems it appropriate to scan and reproduce the plaint sketch, which reads as follows:

(image)

To be noted, said lane has been described as 'suit property in the sketch.

7. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court, complaining that the defendants have put up a small construction in the said lane and that the defendants have thus encroached upon the said lane. On such complaint, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the alleged offending construction put up by the first defendant in the sain lane.

8. To be noted, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid property adjacent to plaintiff's property belongs to the first defendant. It is averred in the plaint that first defendant’s spouse and his brother have been arrayed as 2nd and 3rd defendants, as they had aided first defendant in putting up the aforesaid alleged offending construction.

9. Defendants entered appearance, filed written statement and completed pleadings. The sheet anchor defence of the defendants is that the said lane does not form part of plaintiff’s property and that it forms part of first defendant's property.

10.In this regard, it is relevant to note that in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that she has purchased 2420 square feet land from one K.Rengachari vide sale deed dated 24.02.1993, which has been marked as Ex.A.2. Defendants' title deed and anterior document have been marked as Ex.B2 and Ex.B.1 respectively.

11. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed three issues, which read as follows:'

xxx xxx xxx

12. Parties went to trial on the aforesaid issues. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s spouse Jeyachandran was examined as PW.1 and five documents, ie., Ex. A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, 1st defendant examined himself as DW.1, Advocate Commissioner was examined as DW.2 and seven documents, ie., Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked on the side of defendants.

13. Besides the aforesaid exhibits, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the Trial Court and the C