demolishing the
existing compound wall in order to put up new height
compound wall in place of existing compound wall and
also for costs ... wall
and trying to demolish the existing compound wall and
to put up six feet compound wall, even though the
defendants have no manner
with an independent separate approach
main entrance with the existing compound wall that is
passage area 30 ft. Width 200 ft. Running in length ... existing compound wall from the Pottery Road, ever since
1949 absolutely belongs to the defendant No.1 to 4 with
peaceful enjoyment and possession
defendant. Again on 6.2.2007, the
defendant tried to demolish the existing compound wall on suit
schedule 'B' property and tried to encroach upon ... same. Again on 6.2.2007 also, the defendant tried to
demolish the existing compound wall on suit schedule 'B' property and
tried to encroach
produced the document before
the court to show that the compound wall existing in between properties of
plaintiff and the defendant is exclusively belonging ... that the plaintiff herself has no knowledge in whose
property the compound wall existing in between A and B schedule
properties is situated. She admits
defendants, their men or persons claiming under them from
demolishing the compound wall existing towards western
side of the schedule property and towards eastern side ... Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants tried to demolish the
compound wall existing towards western
side of the suit schedule property and
towards
extract would reveal that even in the year 1952, the existence of compound wall has been specifically mentioned. Merely because the existence of compound wall
plaintiff also had suppressed the fact that there was a compound wall existing on the Northern side, which was shown as her boundary. The learned
Court finds that no notice
directing the plaintiff to demolish the compound
wall has been produced before the courts below,
even though the courts below ... Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat against the
plaintiff to demolish the existing compound
wall in the plaint schedule property to be
void and null and not binding
stated that the existing compound wall has
been demolished and now, when the petitioner attempted to
reconstruct the compound wall obstruction was caused by
respondents ... petitioner
is only for construction of the compound wall, which was in
existence earlier, it shall always be open for the petitioner to
reconstruct
boundary of his property. It is stated that there
was an existing compound wall, which was demolished by the
private respondents. A crime is pending
