JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.24 of 1999 before Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram. The learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Alamelu Nachiyaar, who had sold away the same to the plaintiff under Exhibit A.1 on 13.06.1994. According to the plaintiff, the western wall of the houses in the North Car Street in Ramanathapuram Town belongs to the respective owners. In the present case, on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s property, a lane is located and hence, the wall on either side belongs to the plaintiff.

4. According to the plaintiff, at the time of purchase, there was only a ground floor and she has been putting up new construction part by part. In the northern most portion, the plaintiff has put up a construction to an extent of East-West 11 feet and North-South 36 feet up to the level of 2 floors above the ground floor.

5. According to the plaintiff, she has filed a rough sketch along with the plaint, which would clarify that the suit wall, namely 'ABKL' wall absolutely belongs to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the construction between 'ABEF' portion has already been completed to the extent of 2 floors. When the plaintiff attempted to put construction in the 'F. 1 E.1' portion, the defendants have objected to the same and hence, so far construction could not be put up. The plaintiff has further contended that the defendants have encroached over 'F.1 E.1-KL' portion and hence, sought for mandatory injunction for removal of those encroachments.

6. The defendants have filed a written statement contending that 'ABKL' wall does not belong to the plaintiff, but on the other hand, it belongs to the defendants. According to the defendants, in the 'ABEF' portion, the plaintiff has encroached and has put up a construction up to the level of 2 floors, when the defendants were away from the town. The defendants have further contended that since the entire 'ABKL' wall belongs to the defendants, they have got every right to object to the proposed construction of the plaintiff in FE-F.1 E.1' portion. The defendants have further contended that since the entire 'ABKL' wall belongs to them, they have put up construction in 'F.1 E.1-KL' portion. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for mandatory injunction for removal of the said construction.

7. The defendants have further contended that the parent documents of the plaintiff would indicate that the East-West measurement is just 10 feet, but the plaintiff has chosen to claim East-West measurement of 11 feet based upon Exhibit A.1 document. The defendants have further contended that they rely upon their parent document, namely, Exhibits B.4 to B.6 claiming title over the suit schedule properties. Though the East-West measurement has mentioned as 17 ½ feet, the actual measurement available to them is lesser than that. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the suit wall belongs to him is not factually correct.

8. The defendants have further contended that immediately on the eastern side of the suit wall, there is a buttress wall belonging to the plaintiff. In fact, the said buttress wall alone is the western wall of the plaintiff. Whatever reference to the western wall is made in the parent documents of the plaintiff, would only refer to that said buttress wall and not the suit wall. The defendants have further contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the existence of the said buttress wall touching upon the suit wall on the eastern side. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

9. The trial C