The main legal point established is the entitlement of landowners to uninterrupted access to road margins and the limitations on the authority's right to put up constructions that obstruct such access.

The defendants in the original suit are the appellants herein. Respondent Samiyathal filed the original suit for bare injunction alleging that her right of access to the road from her property through the road margin was sought to be obstructed by the appellants/defendants by putting up a construction for housing the office of a wing of the Police Department, namely CBCID office. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants by filing a common written statement containing parawar denial of the plaint allegations and also a contention that a sufficient space had been left to be used as an access to the property of the respondent/plaintiff from the road.

2. The learned trial Judge, after framing necessary issues, conducted a trial and at the end of trial, relying on an answer given by the plaintiff as PW1, during cross-examination, that she would not have any objection for the defendants putting up a construction after leaving a space sufficient for taking lorries to her go down and a further admission that a space with a width of 5 meter was left to be used as an access from the road to the property of the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff had not proved her entitlement to the relief of injunction as sought for. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit with cost by its judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004.

3. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court and challenging the same, the respondent herein/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.124 of 2007 in the first appellate Court, which came to be disposed of by the first appellate Judge, namely 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. The learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, heard the appeal, re-appriased the evidence and relying on various precedents regarding the right of the land owners adjacent to the road margins, came to the conclusion that the defendants did not have a right to obstruct access to the property of the respondent/plaintiff from the road through the road margin at any point and accordingly, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for without costs.

4. The said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 28.07.2008 is challenged in the present second appeal. In the grounds of second appeal, the following questions have been formulated as the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal:

1) Whether the lower appellate Court misread and misconstrued the evidence of PW1, when she herself curtail her rights?

2) Whether the lower appellate Court in setting aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court?

3) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the admission made by the plaintiff?

4) Whether the lower appellate Court has misconstrued Exs.C1 and C2?

5. This Court, opining that the appeal could be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, issued notice of hearing to the respondent/plaintiff and thus, the respondent/plaintiff is before this Court represented by a learned counsel. Accordingly, this Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Pattabiraman, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants and by Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondent. The materials available on record including the judgments of the Courts below were also perused.

6. The present second appeal can be disposed of on a short point as to whether the Government or the local body can put up any construction which shall not be for the maintenance and upkeep of the road for the use of the public on the road margin so as to obstruct access to the adjoining lands. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the properties described in plaint 'A' schedule as Items 1 and 2. Those two properties abut the property described in plaint 'B' schedule which is admittedly classified as a road margin / c