Interference with the exercise of right by a person is a continuing one.

Defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 529 of 1973, District Munsiff's Court Thiruvallur, are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the first respondent herein against the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 for a declaration of his right of uninterrupted access to Sundara Vinayagar Koil Street, Madhavaram, all along the length of the suit property from West to East measuring 118 links and right of frontage to the suit property and his right of receiving light and air without any interruption by appellants and respondents 2 and 3 and for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the superstructures and fences erected by the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 north of the suit property on a portion of Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street.

2. A reference to the plan of the Commissioner marked as Exhibit C-2 in the proceedings would be helpful in understanding and appreciating the dispute between the parties. The property described as A B C D in Exhibit C-2 belongs to the first respondent and there is no dispute regarding its ownership in the first respondent. To the north of the boundary A D of the property of the first respondent is an open space which belongs to the Government and is vested in the Madhavaram Panchayat. To the north of the open space is a road called Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street. The appellants and respondents 2 and 3 have put up certain constructions in the intervening open space lying between A D and Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street. The constructions so put up by the deceased first defendant in the suit whose legal representatives are respondents 2 and 3, is shown as I J K L in Exhibit C-2. The appellants have put up the constructions shown as M N O P Q R S and S T U V. There is also a well which has been dug up in between I J K L and M N O P Q R and the well belongs to the Panchayat. There is a distance of 5 feet 2 inches between the well and the construction I J K L. The construction M N O P Q R put up by the first appellant is at a distance of 6 feet from the well. Between the construction M N O P Q R and S T U V put up by the appellants, there is a distance of 4 feet 6 inches.

3. According to the cast of the first respondent, he is entitled to have access to Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street, a public street in the north, all along A D line through the road margin to the north of A D and he had been prevented by exercising that right owing to the obstruction caused by the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 and that had also deprived the first respondent of a valuable right of frontage. Besides, the first respondent also claimed that the mill premises put up by him and marked as E F G H in Exhibit C-2 is entitled to receive light and air from the north without any interference by the appellants and respondent's contention was that though he requested the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 to remove the obstruction, it was of no avail and it was under these circumstances that the first respondent instituted the suit praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

4. In the written statement filed by the appellants, they contended that the right of access to Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street on the north claimed by the first respondent is unsustainable and that Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street was only a battai. The construction put up was stated not to deprive the first respondent of his right of access to Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street on the north and to right and air. An objection was also raised that without impleading the Panchayat as well as the District Collector, the suit was not maintainable.

5. Before the trial Court on behalf of the first respondent, Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were filed and P.W. 1 was examined, while, on behalf of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3, Exhibits B-1 to B-20 were marked and dews. 1 and 2 gave evidence. The report of the Commissioner as well as his plan were marked as Exhibits C-1 and C-2. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Distric