NACHIAMMAL Vs. EKANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both sides are heard. No case is made out for admitting this second appeal, since the Court is unable to notice any question of law, much less substantial question of law.

(2.) It was a suit for permanent injunction in respect of 'B' Schedule property alleging that the property is situated on the northern side of the property of the plaintiffs; that there was an agreement between the parties, marked as Ex.A3, in the year 1979, wherein it has been stated that the property should be left vacant; that the plaintiffs have got right to use it; and that during the force of the said agreement A-3, the respondents/defendants have made unlawful constructions what is shown as 'C' Schedule property in respect of which, the plaintiff has asked for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the unlawful constructions. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants before the trial Court interalia stating that it is true that there was an agreement between the parties in the year 1979 marked as Ex.A3, but, subsequently, the same was superseded under Ex.B1 agreement, in the year 1988, as per which, the defendants were permitted to raise the wall abutting the property of the appellants/plaintiffs; that the defendants have accordingly done so, and hence, as per the agreement found under Ex.B1, the plaintiffs had no property or right over anything on the north of their property found as 'A' Schedule to the plaint.

(3.) Necessary issues were framed. After full trial, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit, which was also confirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have brought forth this second appeal.