RAMESWARI Vs. R ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore made in AS No. 2 of 1990, wherein the judgment of the trial court, namely District Munsif , Coimbatore made in OS No. 75 of 1981 for permanent and mandatory injunction was reversed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit seeking the said relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant and mandatory injunction against the second defendant with following allegations: THE first plaintiff purchased the property by a sale deed, dated 25. 6. 1945 under Ex. A. 1 and from that time onwards, he was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same. Originally, there was an old house and the same was demolished in the year 1957. He obtained necessary permission from the second defendant Town Panchayat and he made certain modification in the house and continue to enjoy the same. While so, the first defendant made an attempt to trespass into the property three months prior to the filing of the suit, but the same was thwarted. In view of the old age, the first plaintiff was living with his son, who is having a residence nearby. Taking advantage of the said situation, the first defendant attempted to trespass into the property. Under the stated circumstances, the first plaintiff issued notice, which resulted in reply notice with false allegations. THE plaintiff filed a plan for approval before the second respondent Town Panchayat for construction of a house and for the untenable objections made by the first defendant, the second defendant has not issued approval yet. Under the stated circumstances, there arose a cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction against the first defendant and also for mandatory injunction against the second defendant, directing him to issue approval for a new construction proposed by the plaintiff.

(3.) AS could be seen above, it was a suit for permanent injunction against the first defendant, whose legal representative was added as third defendant and mandatory injunction against the second defendant Town Panchayat. The case of the plaintiffs was that the first plaintiff purchased the property, in question, in the year 1945 under Ex. A. 1 sale deed; that originally, there was a house property and he made certain modification in the year 1957 on permission granted by the second defendant and he has been in continuous enjoyment of the same; that taking advantage of the fact that the property of the first defendant is situated abutting the suit property, he attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment and the same was thwarted. Before filing the suit, the first plaintiff filed an application before the second defendant, seeking permission for a new construction in the site belonged to him, but on the untenable objections raised by the first defendant, the second defendant has not issued approval. The case was resisted by the first defendant stating that the suit property did not belong to the first plaintiff, but it belonged to the first defendant. The second defendant remained ex prate.