SHANMUGHAVEL CHETTIAR Vs. RAMKUMAR GINNING FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 2 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, are the appellants in this second appeal. They have preferred this second appeal against the Judgement and decree dt. 18th Sept. 1985 in A. S. No. 115 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The suit was filed for injunction to restrain the defendants-appellants herein and their men not to start a brick kiln and chamber in the'b' schedule property. The plaintiff succeeded before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the Judgement and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred A. S. No. 115 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the Judgement and decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal before this Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff M/s. Ramkumar Ginning Firm through its sole proprietor V.L. Balasubramaniam is as follows :- In the plaint A schedule property, the plaintiff has constructed building to locate a Ginning Factory and obtained necessary licence therefor from the Panchayat Union. The defendants had purchased the B schedule property three years after the purchase of the A schedule property by the plaintiff and they are contemplating to start a brick kiln in the said property. According to the plaintiff, the proposed brick kiln in the plaint B schedule property will result in hardship since he has to store cotton and use the vacant site for the purpose of drying the cotton before ginning and the proposed brick kiln will bring about the hazard of fire in his ginning factory. It is the further case of the plaintiff that inasmuch as he has invested large capital after obtaining necessary loans from the bank for putting up construction of buildings and for locating. the machineries and the proposed brick kiln business by the defendants does not involve such investments and effort, the balance of convenience is in his favour and that in the said circumstances, he is entitled to the relief of injunction.

(3.) The contentions of the defendants are that the brick kiln of the defendants is situated at a distance of 250 feet away from the plaintiff's Ginning Firm and therefore there is no possibility of any hazard, as apprehended by the plaintiff, that the defendants had been granted licence for starting the brick kiln by the competent authorities and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to prevent the defendants from starting the brick kiln in their own property.