A SRAVANA KUMAR Vs. PUWADA SUVARNALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 3, who are the legal representatives of the 1st defendants, in O.S.No. 688/1983 on the file of 1 Additional District Munsif Court, Tenali, are the appellants in this second appeal. Second plaintiff in the suit is the respondent-herein. Plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory in junction to demolish the rice mill and the mill building constructed in plot D and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from operating or working the rice mill in plot D till the same is demolished. Case of the plaintiffs is that the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and they are the owners of the terraced building shown in plot P in the plaint plan, wherein they are residing. First defendant purchased plot D on the western side of plot D. There is a three yards' width lane for the use of plaintiffs and other neighbourers to go to the street on the northern side. There was a rice mill in the site, which is on the west of the three yards' width lane in the north-west direction. First defendant had taken that mill on lease and the same was demolished later. The 1st defendant constructed a new rice-mill installing a 55 H.P motor in plot D and shifted the machinery from the old rice mill to the building constructed by him in plot D. The locality is in the midst of Tenali Town. Block No. 1, Ward No. 3, in T.S.No. 79. Some of the plots on the road-side are declared as commercial area; but it has not been declared as an 'industrial locality'. The house of the plaintiffs is adjacent to plot-D on its southern side. The construction of the rice mill by the defendants is causing danger and nuisance to the plaintiffs and also other residents of the locality in general. The husk from the rice mill is falling in the house of the plaintiffs apart from obstructing the natural light and air resulting in danger to the building of the plaintiffs as the working of the mill is resulting in vibration of the walls. At times, the insects from the husk are also creeping into the house of plaintiffs, causing health hazards to the inmates of the plaintiff's house; the defendant No.1 constructed the rice mill without obtaining the necessary permission as per law and he did not also obtain the running licence from the municipality; in fact he obtained permission from the municipality for constructing a godown, but surreptitiously installed the rice mill as he is a powerful man; the complaints given by the plaintiffs to the higher authorities did not yield any results. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit, for the reliefs mentioned above.

(2.) Pending trial, 1st defendant died and his sons, defendants 2 and 3 are brought on record as his legal representatives. First defendant had already filed a written statement denying various allegations made in the plaint. It is stated in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 that - the plaint plan is incomplete and incorrect; the position of the old shed in which the rice mill was existing has not been correctly shown in the plaint plan; the eastern wall of the old shed of the rice mil is the western boundary of the joint lane; the southern wall of the old shed of the rice mill extended upto the point which is in line with the southern boundary of the D marked plot; the entire area is located in T.S.N. 79 of Tenali Municipality, which is classified as 'commercial area'; there was a steel factory in plot-D earlier; the old shed and the rice mill were in existence for more than 55 years prior to their demolition and the same were owned by the grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff and the rice mill in that old shed was functioning till the building was demolished and the rice mill was shifted to plot-D by the defendant; first plaintiff or his predecessors-in-titie never complained of any inconvenience or nuisance on account of operation of the rice mill in the old shed; the old shed and the place where the new mill is located in plot D are at equal distance from the house of the plaintiffs; therefore, the position regarding sound or pollution of air by husk has not been altered by the shifting of the mill to plot D so far as the plaintiffs are concerned; all the necessary permissions from all concerned authorities were in fact obtained by the 1st defendant for locating and running the mill in plot D; the construction of the building was done after obtaining necessary permission from the municipality and none of the provisions of the Rice milling Industries Act or the A. P. Municipalities Act or Public Health Act or the Indian Easements Act have been violated by the defendant; plaintiffs have no right to question the orders passed by various authorities granting permission to the defendant to run the rice mill in plot-D; there is neither a window nor a door-way in the wall separating the house of the plaintiffs from plot D and, therefore, the question of husk directly falling into the house of the plaintiffs does not arise; the existence of insects in the husk and paddy is inconceivable, as the husk is being cleared off almost every day or once in two days; the suit filed is premature as the same is filed even before the rice mill in plot-D started functioning; the allegation of the plaintiffs that their house will become unfit for human habitation is false; no valid grounds are made out for demolition of the rice mill in plot-D, and the suit is, therefore, not maintainable.

(3.) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues and on consideration of the entire material on record, oral and documentary, decreed the suit in part, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from running the rice mill, but denied the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the building and the rice mill. The appeal filed by the defendants/appellants-herein, A.S.No. 51 of 1993 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali, was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed.