The central legal point established in the judgment is that encroachments on common property and the extension of property over and above a family temple warrant the granting of mandatory injunction, regardless of the plaintiff's own encroachment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.55 of 2018, dated 06.11.2019 confirming the judgment and decree of learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in O.S.No.913 of 2012, dated 22.01.2018.)

1. The first defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.913 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the encroachment made on the 'B' Schedule property and the roof top of the temple situated in 'B' Schedule property. The plaintiff further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any one encroaching the suit 'B' Schedule property by drawing pipeline on the floor or underneath causing hindrance to the house of the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the prayer for mandatory injunction. However, dismissed the suit with regard to the prayer for permanent injunction. The first defendant filed A.S.No.55 of 2018 before the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties and other properties were owned by her husband Saminathan and father of the first defendant and others. All the co-sharers entered into a registered partition deed on 14.12.1988 under Exhibit A10. According to the plaintiff, 'B' Schedule property was allotted to the share of the husband of the plaintiff and 'B' Schedule property was allotted to the share of the father of the first defendant.

4. The plaintiff has further contended that the 'F' Schedule property consisting of a family temple and a common lane having a width of 3 3/4 feet was retained as a common property in the said partition deed.

5. The plaintiff has further contended that the 'A' Schedule property in the present suit was the property allotted to the share of the first defendant's father. The present 'B' Schedule property is the common property allotted to all the sharers which was segregated as 'F' Schedule property in the partition deed. The plaintiff has contended that the first defendant had encroached upon the 'B' Schedule property and he has covered the common lane hiding the view of the temple. The plaintiff has further contended that the first defendant has encroached the vacant site and made construction in the first floor. She further contended that the first defendant has put up a bore well and motor fitting in the middle of the lane and he is attempting to draw pipelines across the lane, both on the floor and underneath the floor. The plaintiff has further contended that the construction made by the first defendant is not only against the sentiments of the worshipers but also it causes hardship to other co-sharers. Hence, she prayed for mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachments in the 'B' Schedule property and for a permanent injunction in the said 'B' Schedule property.

6. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has also put up certain constructions in the common property in violation of the partition deed. The defendant further contended that he is exclusively entitled to the property in the 'B' Schedule. He further contended that he has put up the construction in the 'B' Schedule property, only after getting consent from all of the sharers. The defendant further contended that he had made improvements to the temple. According to the defendant, the other sharers have agreed for the defendant to put up a terrace over the lane which is also beneficial for worship in the temple. However, the defendant denied that he has made any constructions over and above the temple.

7. The trial Court after co