JUDGMENT

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.311 of

2015, by the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai and in A.S.No.6 of 2020, on the file of the Second Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.311 of

2015, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officials, agents and assigns from in any way installing the electricity transformer blocking the plaintiff's suit property and preventing the plaintiff to have her easy ingress and egress to her property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the transformer installed in front of the house of the plaintiff, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:-

3.1. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff, who had purchased the same by of two registered sale deeds, dated 29.10.2001 and 13.03.2002. Initially, the plaintiff purchased southern portion of the suit property from Balakrishna Mills Private Limited, through its Director A.R.Rathinam, by way of a registered sale deed in Document No.8072 of 2001, dated 29.10.2001 and later on, she has purchased the northern portion of the suit property from A.R.Raghunath, son of A.R.Rathinam, by way of a registered sale deed in Document No.1328 of 2002, dated 13.03.2002 and she has been regularly paying the house tax for the said properties. The Chairman Muthuramaier Road is situated on the western side of the suit property. The plaintiff is also having access to the said road through the door way put up on the western side of the suit property. In the suit property, the plaintiff is having old ACC roof shed house and the ACC roof has become damaged and in a dilapidated condition. Hence, the plaintiff has proposed to put up a new construction, after demolishing the ACC roof shed in the suit property. The plaintiff further submits there is no other access to reach the Chairman Muthuramaier Road, except the door way situated on the western side and the width of the said road is about 25 feet only.

3.2. The plaintiff further submits that there is an open drainage covered by cement slabs adjoining and infront of the suit property and the said drainage is to the width of 4 to 5 feet. On 03.06.2015, the plaintiff has taken steps for putting up a new construction in the suit property. At that time, the officials of the defendants/TANGEDCO inspected the front road portion of the suit property and blocked the suit property for the purpose of erecting a new transformer. Immediately, the plaintiff objected for the same and the defendants have refused to accept the objections. At that point of time, no transformer was installed. If the transformer is installed, the plaintiff's right to access to reach the main road will be highly affected and the plaintiff will not have ingress and egress to reach her house. Further, there are other vacant places for installation of transformer in the said place. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from putting up any electricity transformer blocking the plaintiff's easy access to the road from the plaintiff's house.

3.3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants have installed the poles infront of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.504 of 2017 seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said poles, after serving notice to the defendants. After receiving the said notice, the defendants, with malafide intention, hurriedly installed the transformer in that place, though there are several vacant space and corporation park, which is idle are available. Hence, the plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the transformer installed infront of the house of the plain