LAKSHMANAN AND ORS. Vs. G. AYYASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants/defendants have questioned the correctness of the common impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal Nos. 479 and 480 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 wherein the High Court, after answering the following substantial questions of law disposed of the second appeals by granting certain relief(s):

(3.) Therefore, the second appeals were allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court insofar as the permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants restraining them, their men, agents or servants or any person in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff. While granting the said relief, the learned single Judge of the High Court answered the substantial question Nos. (i) to (iii), referred to supra, in favour of the appellants. It has been clearly held that the grant of permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants, as stated supra, is in contravention of the judgment of the High Court in the case of L. Damodaraswami Naidu, referred to supra, and further extracted the relevant portion from the judgment in the case of N. Kamalammal, referred to supra, and the excerpts of the famous treaties and also the provisions of the Easement Act, which would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that an owner of a particular house has a right to go into his neighbour's land for the purpose of repairing his outer side wall and also for whitewashing the same. Having stated so in the impugned judgment it has been held that the trial court was not right in holding that the suit property is the common property of both the plaintiff and the defendants and that was not the plea of the defendants themselves.