Advocates:
['M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', '', 'V SRIMATHI', 'V LAKSHMINARAYANAN', 'M/S K M BALAJI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 26.07.2019

DELIVERED ON: 22.08.2019

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

S.A.No.150, 151 of 2012 and

M.P.No.1 + 1 of 2012

Anusuya ammal

... Appellant in both the second appeals

( Defendant in OS.NO.788/2004

Plaintiff in OS.NO.176/2006)

Vs.

Deivanai Ammal

... Respondent in both the second appeals

( Plaintiff in OS.NO.788/2004

Defendant in OS.NO.176/2006)

Prayer in S.A.No.150 of 2012: Second Appeal filed under

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree

and judgment dated 11.11.2011 passed in A.S.No.56 of 2011 by the

Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram upholding the decree and

judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.788 of 2004 by the

Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

Prayer in S.A.No.151 of 2012: Second Appeal filed under

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree

and judgment dated 11.11.2011 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2011 by the

Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram reversing the decree and

judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.176 of 2006 by the

Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

for Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondent

: Mr.K.M.Balaji

COMMON JUDGEMENT

The second appeals in S.A.No.150/2012 and 151/2012 are

filed against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.56/2011

and A.S.No.46/2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,

Kanchipuram.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.176/2006

and defendant in O.S.No.788/2004 on the file of the Additional

District Munsif, Kanchipuram. The suit in O.S.No.788/2004 was

filed by the present respondent for a mandatory injunction

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

directing the appellant to remove the obstructions in the suit

property. Similarly, the suit in O.S.No.176/2006 was filed by

the appellant herein against the respondent for a mandatory

injunction for removal of obstructions in the common well. Since

the subject matter, issues and the parties are one and the same

in both the suits, the suits were tried jointly by the

Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram and evidence was

recorded in common in O.S.No.788 of 2004.

3. For the sake of convenience, Deivanai Ammal

(respondent herein), the plaintiff in O.S.No.788/2004 is called

as plaintiff and Anusuya Ammal (appellant herein), the defendant

in O.S.No.788/2004 is called as defendant.

4. The entire suit property originally belonged to one

late Muniammal, who had purchased the same from one Unnamalai

Ammal, way back in 1961. The middle portion of the property

admeasuring 27 feet x 105 feet was settled by the said Muniammal

in 1982 in favour of her daughter, who is also the plaintiff in

O.S.No.788 of 2004 and the front and rear portions measuring 24

feet x 27 1/2 feet and 24 feet x 25 feet respectively were

settled in favour of her grand son Madhavan. The main property

facing East, along with a narasam (common pathway) measuring 3

feet in breadth on the southern side which is being used as a

means of ingress and egress was found mention in the settlement

deeds. The said Madhavan sold the front portion measuring 24

feet x 27 1/2 feet through a registered sale deed dated

28.04.1993 (Ex.B12) to one Vimala, who in turn sold the same to

the defendant in 1996 through a sale deed Ex.B2. According to

the plaintiff, the defendant demolished the existing tiled house

in 2001 and started putting up RCC structure encroaching upon

the narasam (common pathway) by projecting the ceiling of her

house towards south and also by constructing a toilet and

latrine over the same. The plaintiff in O.S.No.788/2004

therefore prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the

defendant to remove all the constructions including the TNEB

service wires, which are dangling above narasam ( common

pathway).

5.