Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Vijayakumar
M.N.Prabhakaran – Appellant
Versus
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple – Respondent
ORDER :
R.Vijayakumar, J.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.591 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of his interim injunction application which was confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in CMA.No.2 of 2020.
(A)Factual Matrix:
2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from constructing any wall or putting up any fence on the eastern boundary of item No.1 of the schedule mentioned properties abutting the Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) and thereby obstructing the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff from Item No.1 through Item No.2.
3.A perusal of the plaint averment reveals that the plaintiff had purchased first item of the property under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017. Under the said document, he had purchased 1670 sq.ft in T.S.No.225/2D. In the boundary recital, Kamarajar Salari, Ramanthapuram Road is shown as northern boundary. Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) is shown as eastern boundary. The o
Property owners have an inherent right of access to public roads, irrespective of alternative routes; denial of access violates legal principles governing property rights.
Landowners adjacent to public roads maintain a fundamental right of access to their properties, regardless of alternate access points, supporting public interest and use.
Section 265 of Act reads as vesting of public streets and their appurtenances in corporation.
The necessity to establish prima facie evidence for the grant of temporary injunction in property disputes, and the right of property owners to protect their property.
The court affirmed that a private street does not permit public access without evidence to the contrary, thereby granting the plaintiff's request for permanent injunction.
The plaintiff must demonstrate ownership or lawful possession to maintain a suit for permanent injunction; lack thereof results in dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
