JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, allowing the A.S.No.64 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 against the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.93 of 99 dated 26.09.2005.

Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.No.63 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 reversing the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.280 of 89 dated 26.09.2005.)

(Heard through video conferencing)

1. The Second Appeal in 717 of 2009 has been filed against the judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, allowing the A.S.No.64 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 against the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.93 of 99 dated 26.09.2005 and the Second Appeal in 768 of 2009 has been filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.No.63 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 reversing the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.280 of 89 dated 26.09.2005.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the appellant will be referred as the defendant and the 1st respondent will be referred as the plaintiff during this course of the discussion. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar in nature, with the consent of the parties, they are disposed through a common judgment.

3. The avernments of the parties in brief:

The plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing door No.2/100 A, in main road, Velagoundampatty. She is residing in the ground floor and let out the first floor for rent. The defendant is the owner of the adjacent building bearing door No.2/100. In the said house the defendant was running a flour and oil mill from March, 1988 under the name and style of “Deepa Arul Oil Mill” under a license. For running this shop, she has installed 2 rotaries, 2 flour machines and grinder, all run by a 15 H.P. Electric Motor. She is also running a decorticator. All the machineries of the defendant have been installed in the residential area which is thickly populated. And the defendant runs the machines round the clock. Because of that the plaintiff needs to put up with the enormous and defending noise, created by the machines. Apart from that a cloud of flour and chilly dust spread throughout the area including the residential part of the plaintiff and chilly creates pungent smell. The inmates of the adjacent houses may not even able to converse with normal sound. This also caused health hazards to the nearby residents including the plaintiff. The children cannot study amidst of noise and the noise vibrations affect the windows and doors of the buildings. Hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction for restraining the defendant from causing any nuisance to the plaintiff by operating the machineries in the suit properties.

4. The written statement of the defendant in brief is as under:

The defendant has filed a written statement by stating that she is running the Flour and Oil Mill by obtaining due license from the concerned authorities. That the defendant invested huge money and she has carried on her business from March-1998. It is false to allege that the defendant’s machinery creates huge sound. It is also false to say that the noise was unbearable and that the neighbours are affected with the health hazards. Having kept quiet for several years the plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.

5. The defendant himself has filed a suit in OS.No.93/1999, against the plaintiff and the officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Department for the relief of Permanent Injunction from disconnecting the Service Connec