Co-owners can seek injunctions against each other to protect their rights, and findings from previous suits on common property usage are binding.

JUDGMENT :

(V. Lakshminarayanan, J.)

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.78 of 2015 dated 14.07.2017 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Erode District in confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.262 of 2012 dated 30.04.2015 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Erode District.)

The present Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree of the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge at Erode in A.S.No.78 of 2015, dated 14.07.2017 in confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Court of I Additional District Munsif at Erode in O.S.No.262 of 2012, dated 30.04.2015.

2. The suit in O.S.No.262 of 2012 was presented by the respondent herein seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, etc., from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's common user and enjoyment of suit 'B' schedule mentioned property or to put up any constructions therein. The second relief being for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, etc., from demolishing the constructions in Item-2 of the 'A' schedule property or interfere with the common possession and enjoyment of the same. During the pendency of the suit, as the title of the plaintiff was denied, he amended the prayer to include the relief of declaration and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the constructions put up over Item-2 of the 'A' schedule mentioned property.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to two brothers namely Chenniappa Gounder and Periyanna Gounder. They divided the property among themselves under the Partition Deed dated 24.01.1945. As per the document, the house properties were divided in Anganams, leaving a part as the passage between the two properties of 'A' schedule to be used exclusively by them. The 'B' schedule property is a lane, which commences from Muthuvelappa Gounder Street and ends in a Municipal lane. The 'A' schedule mentioned property abuts the Municipal lane. The plaintiff pleaded that the heirs of Chenniappa Gounder namely Ramayammal, Chinnasamy, Senthil Kumar and Mahesh Kumar sold the property which fell to the share of Chinnasamy Gounder, the son of Chenniappa Gounder, in favour of one A.Wilson by the registered Sale Deed dated 27.03.1991. The heirs of Chenniappa Gounder not only sold the two anganam house on the southern side of the property but had also alienated their right to use the 3 feet lane common to them. The plaintiff would claim title to the suit property by virtue of the fact that the father of the plaintiff, one Palaniappan, had executed a registered Settlement Deed in his favour with respect to Item-1 of the suit 'A' schedule property.

4. In so far as Item-2 of the 'A' schedule property is concerned, the property which was enjoyed by the aforesaid Chinnasamy Gounder, son of Chenniappa Gounder, the plaintiff and his brother purchased the same by way of Registered Sale Deed on 17.09.2003. After enjoying the property in common, on 19.04.2010, the plaintiff's brother Jayachandran alienated his half share in favour of plaintiff by a Settlement Deed. The plaintiff would plead that there is a common lane measuring 3 feet by 125 feet between Item-1 of the suit 'A' schedule property and Item-2 of the suit 'A' schedule property. Apart from the plaintiff and defendants, the suit pathway was to be enjoyed in common by Susairaj, Mallika and Narayanasamy, who had property on the western side of the lane.

5. The plaintiff would further plead that the 1st defendant-Vimala together with her deceased father Balasubramaniam, Narayanasamy and Mallika had presented a suit in O.S.No.263 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Erode seeking for an injunction on the basis that the 3 feet lane between the two properties exclusively belonged only to the pla