The court held that the applicants had a strong case for trial, and granting interim relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The court referred to the guidelines for granting interlocutory mandatory injunctions and the principles of granting interim injunctions in a mandatory form. It rejected the respondents' argument that no common passage existed and that the applicants had given up their right to use it. The court granted interim injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and allow the applicants to use the common passage.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The applicants/plaintiffs have filed these applications viz., O.A. Nos. 755 and 756 of 1999, seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from putting up any construction or obstruction in the common passage running from the applicants' house to T.T.K. Road and for issue of interim mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised construction of a recently erected wall in front of the gate belonging to the applicants/plaintiffs, pending disposal of the suit filed by them requesting for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

2. The case of the applicants is as follows :-

"A) The applicants purchased a vacant land bearing door No. 265-A, T.T.K. Road, Chennai from one P. Madhavan on 1-4-1981 measuring an extent of 1 ground 1226 sq.ft., out of the total extent of 3 grounds 2265 sq.ft. Through the said Sale Deed, the said Madhavan gave the right of access to the property from T.T.K. Road with a width of 11 feet and to a length of 100 feet.

B) After construction of house in the said land, as per the sanctioned Plan, the applicants have been using the common passage since then. The said right of common passage was mentioned even in the subsequent Rectification Deeds dated 7-5-1981 and 24-9-1981, executed by said Madhavan.

C) On 12-10-1983, the balance portion of land of 2 grounds 1039 sq.ft. was sold by the said Madhavan to one Saraswathi and Jagadeesan, who in turn, on 14-7-1993, sold the same to the respondents/defendants. After the purchase of the said land, the respondents started constructing of multi-storeyed building without sanction from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and Corporation of Chennai, causing inconvenience to the applicants even in regard to the usage of the common passage mentioned above. Therefore, the applicants filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 11290/97 for direction for injunction against the respondents herein.

D) Though both the CMDA and the respondents had filed a counter, admitting the contravention of the Rules, the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of, as it was brought to the notice of this Court that there was a right for the respondents to apply to the Authorities requesting for regularisation. At this stage, all of a sudden, on 28-11-99, the respondents, by way of preventing the using of common passage to go to the T.T.K. Road from the applicants' house, started putting up a wall in front of the gate of the applicants' house.

E) Despite the objection raised by the applicants, the respondents proceeded with the said construction of wall in front of the gate of the applicants' house and thus, prevented the applicants from having access to the common passage to go to the T.T.K. Road. The applicants also gave a Police complaint, but there was no response. Hence, this present suit seeking for declaration that the applicants/plaintiffs are entitled to have a free access or right of way to the common passage, mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the obstruction and for other consequential reliefs. Pending suit, they seek interim reliefs for exercising their right of using the common passage as they have been using the same from 1-4-1981 onwards and interim mandatory injunction for removal of the obstruction put up by the respondents in the common passage."

3. The case of the respondents is this :-

A)" The sale deed executed by the said Madhavan in favour of the applicants on 1-4-1981 or the sale deed dated 12-10-1983 in favour of the said Saraswathi and Jagadeesan, the vendors of the respondents, did not give any right of access to common passage to the applicants. Moreover, the Sale Deed executed by the said Saraswathi and Jagadeesan in favour of the respondents/ defendants would clearly mention that the right of way in the common passage of width of 11 feet and to a length of 96 feet is given to the respondents only. Even assuming that there is som