(1.) THE defendants who had lost in both the Courts in a suit for permanent injunction are the appellants in the Second Appeal.
(2.) THE suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the usage of the portion marked as 'J J1' in the plaint plan.
(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she had purchased the property on 28/11/1990 under Ex.A.3 from one Chellaperumal his wife and children. Pursuant to the sale deed, the plaintiff has been in possession of the property. The title of the plaintiff is not in dispute. The property purchased under Ex.A.3 is described as Door No.3, Karthigai Madam Street. The defendants had purchased the property in the year 1988. The plaintiff's main entrance is on the northern side which opens out of a common mutram. The plaintiff and the defendants together erected a wall and put up a gate in the year 2003. Though according to the plaintiff, 50% of the expenses were agreed to be borne by the defendants, as the defendants delayed the payment, the plaintiff was demanding for the same. Aggrieved, the defendants locked the gate denying the access of the plaintiff to Karthigai Madam Street. The gate was erected only to avoid the cattle coming inside the common mutram belonging to the parties. If the gate is closed and if the plaintiff is denied the access, the plaintiff cannot use his entrance as the main entrance of the plaintiff's house facing north east opening into Karthigai Madam Street. In fact, there is a staircase east west of the plaintiff's house which descends into mutram. Admittedly, the mutram belonged only to the plaintiff and the defendants. If the defendants are allowed to lock the gate, the plaintiff and her family cannot enter through the main entrance. Hence the suit has been filed for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the usage either by closing or by locking the same.