The entitlement to injunction is based on the evidence of hindrance or disturbance caused to the property, and in the absence of such evidence, the court may dismiss the appeal for injunction.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs, by encroaching and blocking the passage of the schedule property in any manner and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove unlawful construction put up in front of the schedule property by blocking the passage measuring an extent of 8.58 feet in width and 15.18 feet in length.

2. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, having inherited the same as legal heirs. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Presently, the plaintiffs are residing in Chennai due to their avocation and visiting the suit property at regular intervals. The suit property is the Punja land having 35 feet frontage facing Tiruchendur to Thisaiyanvillai Road. The first defendant, who is the President of the Kommadikottai Panchayat, planned to construct a bus-stop in front of the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs were trying to stop the same. However, it is stated that the first defendant had attempted to encroach the front portion of the suit property. The plaintiffs had also issued a legal notice to the first and second defendants. But, there was no response to the same. It is also stated in the plaint that during the pendency of the suit, in the month of September, 2008, the defendants had proceeded with the construction and completed the construction of the bus-stop. Hence, the relief of mandatory injunction was also sought.

3. The first defendant/Panchayat has filed a written statement stating that in Sokkankudieruppu village, there are about 100 families residing and there is no bus-stop on the Udankudi to Thisaiyanvillai Road. For the benefit of the students, women, patients and passengers, a resolution was passed and a tender was called for constructing the bus-stop. It is stated by the first defendant that even before filing of the suit, the construction of the bus-stop had been completed. The bus-stop is stated to be six feet away from the suit property and only a portion of the bus-stop is in front of the suit property and rest of it is in front of the land belonging to one Simon. The construction of the said bus-stop will not in any way hinder or cause any disturbance to the plaintiffs' property.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to A3 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner's report, sketch and plan were also marked as Exs.C1 to C3. The trial Court, on consideration of the documents and evidences, had allowed the suit only in respect of granting permanent injunction and as regards, the prayer for mandatory injunction the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 3 of 2012. The first appellate Court also dismissed the suit confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. At the time of admission of the second appeal, only notice was ordered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The case of the plaintiffs is that since the lands viz. the suit property, is on the highway, he is entitled to have ingress and egress at every point to his land. The construction of the bus-stop in front of his property is blocking the passage to his land. According to the defendants, the construction of a bus-stop on a National Highway is in the interest of the public, when the particular area has got more than 100 families. The construction of a bus-stop would only be a facility for the village and the same cannot be opposed. The said bus-stop was constructed only in the prompoke land and not on the private land of the plaintiffs.

8. It is clearly demonstrated by the defendants that between the plaintiffs' property and th