IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and M.P.No.1 of 2009 1. AYYASAMY(died)

S/o Mariappan D.No.38 Kandasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur Coimbatore Taluk and 4 Others

2.Mayilathal W/o Ramamurthy D.No.20/5 Ayyasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur Coimbatore Taluk

3.Vetriveeeran (died)

S/o Late Pechimuthu Pannadi D.No.20/5 Ayyasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur Coimbatore Tauk

4.Vasanthy D/o. Late Ayyasamy, D.No.3B, Rangasamy Pannadi Veedhi, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore 641 008

5.Saroja D/o. Late Ayyasamy, D.No.3B, Rangasamy Pannadi Veedhi, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore 641 008.

(A1 died, A4 and 5 are brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased A1 vide court order dated 09/10/2025 made in CMP.nos.24355,24356 and

24357 of 2025 in SA.No.1053 of

2009(RNMJ)

Appellant(s) / Plaintiffs Vs.

1. A.Masilamani S/o Arumugham D.No.11/3a Ayyasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur 641 008

2.Ramathal W/o Late Arumugam D.No.3-c Rangasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur Coimbatore 641 008

3.Kanimozhi D/o Late Arumugam D.No.3-c Rangasamy Pannadi Veedhi Kuniamuthur Coimbatore 641 008 Respondent(s) /

Defendants PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Judicial cum III Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court at Coimbatore dated 16.11.2005 in A.S.No.140 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore dated 14.07.2005 in O.S.No.683 of 1999.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Venkata Subban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent(s): No appearance

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 16.11.2005 made in A.S.No.140 of 2005.

2. The suit has been filed for seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the alleged illegal constructions as shown in the plaint plan as “ABCD” and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up further construction in the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs has also got dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by which the present Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.

3. The facts pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in brief:

The suit property was purchased by the husband of the first plaintiff Pechimuthu and his two brothers viz. the plaintiffs 2 and 3, from Pechiannan and Ganesan, through a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1995. The husband of the first plaintiff died subsequently. The suit property measures 43 feet North – South and 66 feet East – West. The adjacent property in the West belonged to one Ramasamy and now it belongs to the first defendant. The first defendant purchased the property on 10.06.1988. The first defendant is entitled to 39’ 6”

East – West and 19’ 6” on North – South and there is a house building in his property. The first plaintiff died on 27.03.2021 and the legal heirs are the other plaintiffs. The defendants 2 and 3 have inherited the shares of the deceased third plaintiff in the suit property and they have been impleaded as pro-forma parties and they have not filed any written statement also.

3.1 The first defendant applied for additional construction to his house.

Under the guise of putting up additional constructions, the first defendant had encroached an extent of 1 ½ ft. into the property of the plaintiffs on the western side in the month December, 1988. The second plaintiff preferred an objection to the Town Panchayat by notice dated 03.04.1999 calling upon him to cancel the license given to the first defendant to put up additional construction in his property. In the notice dated 03.04.1999 the Executive Officer has clearly ordered the first defendant that he should stop the additional construction in pursuance to the revocation of the license. Despite the same, the first respondent prepared to put up the first fl