Decree modified directing encroacher to remove construction put up by her.

Second appeal is by the second defendant who got herself impleaded in O.S. No.98 of 1979, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Cuddalore.

.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff, first respondent herein, was against the Cuddalore Municipality represented by its Commissioner. It was a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the Municipality to remove the obstruction caused by the appellant herein, by constructing a hut in front of the plaintiff s house. The allegation was that the construction caused obstruction to his access to the highway, and that the construction is in a poramboke 1and belonging to the Municipality. It was averred that the appellant is a trespasser, and that it was without permission of the Municipality, she has constructed the hut. Even though various demands were made to the Municipality to remove the hut, the Municipality did not take any action. Hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking a mandatory injunction to take steps to remove the unauthorised construction.

3. In the written statement filed by the Municipality, it is said that they have issued notice to the encroach-ers under Sec. 182 of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act on 23. 1978 and subsequently on 3. 1979. Since necessary steps have been taken, there is no need for mandatory injunction and the suit as such is not maintainable.

4. In the written statement filed by her, the second defendant has stated that she and her husband were in occupation of the hut in question for years together, and they have been paying tax to the Municipality. The allegation that the hut is in a poramboke land, is denied. According to her, she and her husband have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the statutory period and have prescribed title by adverse possession. She has further stated that when her husband constructed the hut, the plaintiff did not raise any objection and, therefore, he is estopped from contending that the construction is objectionable.

.5. The trial court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the land in front of the plaintiff’ s house is a poramboke land, that the contentions of the second defendant that herself and her husband were in possession of the hut long before the institution of the suit and the claim of adverse possession are all incorrect, and ultimately the trial court granted a mandatory injunction against the first defendant-Municipality, and dismissed the suit as against the second defendant. Even though the suit as against the second defendant was dismissed, she preferred an appeal as A.S. No.91 of 1982, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Cuddalore. The maintainability of the appeal was challenged before the lower appellate court. It came to the conclusion that ultimately the second defendant was the person aggrieved by virtue of the decree granted by the trial court and, therefore, the appeal was maintainable. On facts, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the hut was unauthorisedly constructed, that the land over which the hut in question was constructed, is a poramboke land, and that was the only access for the plaintiff to reach his building, and that the municipality (first defendant) has not done its statutory duty in evicting the appellant herein from the hut. The lower appellate court held that apart from issuing notice, the municipality had not taken any timely steps to evict the encroacher. Regarding the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that being a pathway or road, any pedestrian, if his right of access is obstructed, has got the right to question the obstruction, and in that way, the plaintiff whose right of access was affected, had the locus standi to file the suit. In this view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed with costs. It is against the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the second defendant has preferred this second appe