MARIAPRAKASAM Vs. MARIA MATHALASAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any house or construction of the suit properly, without sanction and approval of the site plan from the Nagercoil Municipality. THE Municipality the second defendant in the suit. THE plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing No.M.M.C.No.26/6A (old No.N.M.C.No.26/3). THE wall on the western side of the defendant's house fell down and the first defendant had taken steps to re-erect the wall. applied for sanction to the Municipality on 1.12.1977. THE suit was filed on 21.12.1977. Municipality refused to sanction the plan by an order dated 21.7.1978 after the filing suit.

(2.) THE trial court held that the first defendant was not entitled to reconstruct the wall without the sanction of the Municipality. On appeal, the learned Judge reversed the conclusion trial court and held that there was no necessity for the first defendant to obtain the sanction of the Municipality for the purpose of reconstructing the wall. It is the correctness judgment that is challenged by the respondent.

(3.) IN order to understand the purpose of the explanation to Sec.l97(1), it is necessary to refer to the terms of Sec.3(3), in which a "building" is defined as "including a house, out-house, stable, latrine, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall not exceeding eight feet in height) and any other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever." IN the definition under Sec.3 (3) an exception is made with reference to the boundary walls not exceeding 8 feet height. IN order to cover boundary walls of lesser height also, explanation to Sec.197(1) has been introduced. Under that explanation if the wall abuts a public street, then would fall within the definition of building whatever may be the height thereof. Sec.197(1) will apply only to cases of construction or reconstruction of a building other than a hut. The expression "reconstruction of a building" is specifically defined under Sec.3(24) of the Act, which is under: "Reconstruction" of a building includes: (a) the re-erection wholly or partially of a building after more than one-half of its cubical contents has been taken down or burnt down, or has fallen down whether at one time not; (b) the re-erection wholly or partially of any building of which an outer wall has been taken down or burnt down or has fallen down to or within ten feet of the ground adjoining the lowest storey of the building, and of any frame building which has so far been taken down burnt down or has fallen down as to leave only the framework of the lowest storey; (c) the conversion into a dwelling-house or a place of public worship of any building not originally constructed for human habitation or for public worship, as the case may be, or the conversion into more than one dwelling house of a building originally constructed as one dwelling-house only or the conversion of a dwelling house into a factory; (d) the re-conversion into a dwelling-house or a place of public worship or a factory of any building which has been discontinued as, or appropriated for any purpose other than, dwelling-house or a place of public worship or factory as the case may be." When there is a specific definition of a particular expression, that definition should be applied unless there is anything repugnant to the context. The specific definition of the expression " reconstruction of a building " shall be applied for the purpose of Sec.197. If that definition applied, the present building will not fall under Sec.197. Clause (a) of Sec.3(24) relates to re-erection, wholly or partially of a building after than one half of its cubical contents has been taken down or burnt down, or has fallen whether at one time or not. Certainly the case will not be covered by clause (a). Clause relates to any building of which an outer wall has been taken down or burnt down or fallen down to or within ten feet of the ground adjoining the lowest storey of the building, and of any frame building which has so far been taken down or has fallen down as to only the framework of the lowest storey. Clause (b) will also not be applicable to the present case. Clauses (c) and (d) do not come anywhere in the picture and it relates to place public worship or any building not originally constructed for human habitation or for worship, as the case may be, or the conversion into more than one dwelling house building originally constructed as one dwelling house only or the conversion of a dwelling house into a factory.