SUNDARARAJAN Vs. JHANSI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by second defendant in O.S.No. 239 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Musiri.

(2.) O.S.No. 239 of 1998 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this case for injunction, restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs in making use of 'B' schedule pathway. Even though injunction was claimed against two defendants, as against the first defendant, injunction was not granted on the ground that the first defendant was living abroad and he has not given rise to any dispute or cause of action for the grant of injunction. But, as against the petitioner, an ad-interim injunction was granted and subsequently after hearing both parties ad.interim injunction was confirmed and an order of injunction was granted till of the suit.

(3.) THE lower Court, thereafter, heard the injunction application on merits. THE ad-interim order was confirmed. It came to the conclusion that in the 'B' schedule property, there is a cart track, which is necessary for a convenient enjoyment of 'A' schedule property. 'B' schedule property is in and there is a pathway. It also came to the conclusion that when the pathway is shown on the date of suit, it is only proper that both the parties should maintain status quo i.e., the pathway should not be obliterated or in any way changed. It also came to the conclusion that the pathway is a common pathway not only to the petitioner and the plaintiffs, It also goes north-west and it has to be enjoyed by other persons also. It came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case and it is only proper that the cart track should be maintained as intact. Any destruction of the cart track will make the suit itself infructuous and the plaintiffs will also put to great hardship.