Mr. P.R. Shivakumar, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 74 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur is the appellant in the second appeal. The defendants therein are the respondents in the second appeal.

2. Karuppannan, the appellant herein, filed the above said suit for a declaration that the action taken by the defendants by erecting Oil Engine Generators or any other kind of machineries in plaint 'B' schedule property causing nuisance will result in discomfort to him and his family members, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting a telecommunication tower in the plaint 'B' schedule property till the disposal of the suit and for cost. The suit was resisted by the respondents herein and after trial, the learned trial Judge, by judgment and decree dated 08.10.2010, decreed the suit in respect of the prayer for injunction and dismissed the suit in respect of the prayer for declaration.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of declaration, Karuppannan, the appellant herein, filed an appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Karur. The first respondent herein preferred a cross appeal challenging that part of the decree of the trial Court granting the relief of injunction. The learned lower appellate Judge chose to dismiss the appeal preferred by Karuppannan, the appellant in the second appeal/plaintiff in the original suit, namely A.S. No. 20 of 2011 by a judgment and decree dated 24.01.2012. Thereafter, the learned lower appellate Judge, took up the cross-appeal filed by the first respondent herein separately, allowed the same by a separate judgment and decree dated 13.09.2013 and thereby set aside the decree granted by the trial Court for permanent injunction, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the suit in entirety.

4. As against the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant herein/plaintiff, namely A.S. No. 20 of 2011, the appellant has not filed any second appeal. On the other hand, the appellant/plaintiff has chosen to file the present second appeal only against the decree passed in the cross-appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted on 10.02.2014 formulating the following questions to be the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal:

(1) Whether the 1st Appellate Court is right in allowing the cross appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2011 on 13.09.2013, while on 24.01.2012 allowing the decree of injunction passed by the trial Court made in O.S. No.74 of 2010 to continue?

(2) Whether the very cross appeal is maintainable before the 1st appellate Court while the remedy to the 1st respondent is to file appeal before the Hon'ble Court, if aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Karur, made in A.S. No. 20 of 2011 on 24.01.2012 ?

(3) Whether the Additional Sub-Judge has passed conflicting judgments in view of the order passed in cross appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2011 and in Appeal No. 20 of 2011 ?

(4) Whether the Court below is right in refusing to grant the equitable relief to the appellant?

6. The arguments advanced by Mr. N. Shanmugaselvam, learned counsel for the appellant, by Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel for the first respondent and by Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel for the second respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also perused.

7. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of the second appeal, it shall be helpful to narrate briefly the following facts leading to the filing of the second appeal:-

Karuppannan, the appellant in the second appeal/plaintiff is the owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.03.2010 marked as Ex. A1. He has constructed a house and he along with other members of his family, is residing there. The plaint 'B' schedule property situates near the plaint 'A' schedule property and it is owned by Tharmendran, the second respondent/second