Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) At the time of purchase, only in the portion shown as, “EF”, there was a common wall present and it approximately measures 39.6 feet. The roof of the defendant rest in the “EF” portion above. The plaintiff consulted the defendant to construct a common wall, but the defendant failed to co-

operate for constructing the wall. Thereby, in the month of June 2001, the http://www.judis.nic.in plaintiff constructed “AE” and “FD” wall in his portion of the land and after that the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the 2nd and 3rd schedule wall. Even at the time of construction, the plaintiff left a space for the defendant on the western side of 'A E' and 'F D' portion, so as to facilitate the defendant to put up construction. During the month of October 2001, the defendant put up a tiled shed, by touching the 2nd schedule wall. The plaintiff informed the elders of the area and thereafter the defendant promised to remove them, but he does not done so. In the month of February 2002, the defendant attempted to put up a construction, touching the 3rd schedule wall. In fact, the defendant has no right to put up construction touching or resting the 2nd and 3rd schedule wall. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction.

(2) Whether the Courts below have arrived at perverse conclusion regarding the character of the 3rd schedule wall, when the documentary evidence and oral evidence of the appellants are contra to the oral evidence of the respondent?
(3). Whether the Courts below are correct in deciding a portion of the entire wall as exclusive wall when the character of 2/3rd length of the remaining wall is declared as common wall?” http://www.judis.nic.in

12. In the said circumstances, initially we have to decide whether in earlier there was a common wall situated in between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is admitted on either side that the plaintiff purchased the property vide sale deed, dated 28.08.1998. The said sale deed was marked as Ex.A2, on the side of the plaintiff. Further, the sale deed, dated 19.01.1903, stands in the name of the vendors of the plaintiff and was marked as Ex.A1. In both the sale deeds, the four boundaries of the property purchased by the plaintiff and his predecessor was mentioned as property situated on the eastern side of north-south common wall. It is further admitted on either side that on the western side of ' C' schedule property, the defendant is having his property. So, prima facie, it was proved on the side of the plaintiff that there was a common north-south wall is situated in between the plaintiff and the defendant's properties and the same is mentioned as common wall in Exs.A1 and A2.

13. Before the trial Court, on the side of the defendant, an agreement made on 27.12.1982 between the said Sornavel Andi @ Kandasamy Pannaiyar, who is the vendor of the plaintiff and one Leela Ammal was marked as Ex.B1. In the said document it is admitted that the disputed http://www.judis.nic.in north-south wall situated in the 'C' schedule property is common to both. Only thereafter, the plaintiff purchased his property from the said Kandasamy Pannaiyar and thereby, the vendor of the plaintiff through Ex.B1, admitted that the common wall situated in 'C' schedule property is common to him and to the vendor of the defendant.