STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. D.SAMIYATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the original suit are the appellants herein. Respondent Samiyathal filed the original suit for bare injunction alleging that her right of access to the road from her property through the road margin was sought to be obstructed by the appellants/defendants by putting up a construction for housing the office of a wing of the Police Department, namely CBCID office. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants by filing a common written statement containing parawar denial of the plaint allegations and also a contention that a sufficient space had been left to be used as an access to the property of the respondent/plaintiff from the road.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge, after framing necessary issues, conducted a trial and at the end of trial, relying on an answer given by the plaintiff as PW1, during cross-examination, that she would not have any objection for the defendants putting up a construction after leaving a space sufficient for taking lorries to her godown and a further admission that a space with a width of 5 meter was left to be used as an access from the road to the property of the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff had not proved her entitlement to the relief of injunction as sought for. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit with cost by its judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004.

(3.) THIS Court, opining that the appeal could be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, issued notice of hearing to the respondent/plaintiff and thus, the respondent/plaintiff is before this Court represented by a learned counsel. Accordingly, this Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.Pattabiraman, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants and by Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondent. The materials available on record including the judgments of the Courts below were also perused.