IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 23.03.2022

PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 25.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

S.A.NO.190 OF 2013

&

M.P.NO.1 OF 2013

Arulmighu Palapattarai

Mariamman Tirukoil

Rep. by its Executive Officer

Namakkal.

... Appellant/1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

vs.

1. Pappayee

2. Pavayee (Died)

... Respondents 1 & 2/Appellants/Plaintiffs

3. The Commissioner

Namakkal Municipality,

Namakkal,

Namakkal District.

... 3^rd Respondent/2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

4. P.Kalavathi

5. P.Punithavathi

6. Gunasundar

7. P.Senthilselvan

... Respondents

[R2 died. Memo in USR.No.101858/2018 dated 13.12.2018 is

recorded. R1 are recorded as LR of the Deceased R2 Viz.,

Pavayee vide order of court dated 13.12.2018 made in S.A.No.190

of 2013 KRJ]

[R4 to R7 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R2 viz.,

Pappayee vide order of Court dated 20.02.2020 made in

CMP.No.13083 of 2019 in S.A.No.190 of 2013]

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,

against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in A.S.No.48 of

2011 on the file of the Additional District Court Judge,

Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.683 of

2005, dated 31.10.2007 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif's Court, Namakkal.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Kalyanaraman

For Respondents

:

R1 & R2 Died

Mr.P.Srinivas for R3

Mr.A.Arulmozhi

for R4 to R6

R7 – Not ready in notice

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2.The 1^st and 2^nd respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit

seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the 1^st

defendant and to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering

with the usage of the suit property by putting up any structure

or barricade and thereby, prevent the ingress and egress to the

property belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought

for the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the suit AB

portion to its original position.

3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they became entitled to

the properties on the demise of their mother on 20.01.1984.

According to the plaintiffs, the portion shown as AB in the

rough plan filed along with the suit is a street called as

Mariamman Koil Street which is classified as a Poramboke in the

revenue records and it is a public street vested with the 2^nd

defendant Municipality. On the southern side of this street

exists the Mariamman Temple at S.No.43. The street is in S.No.42

and the schedule properties are in S.Nos.30, 31 and 32.

4.The further case of the plaintiffs is that for all the

tenements in S.Nos.30 and 31, their only access is from

Mariamman Koil Street in S.No.42 from time immemorial.

Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, it will not be open to

anyone to prevent the user or cause obstruction to the ingress

and egress from any point in S.Nos.30 and 31 to this street in

S.No.42.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the 1^st defendant

was making arrangements to put up a barricade in order to raise

a structure in the place that has been earmarked as a public

street. The plaintiffs further state that the said attempt was

prevented by the 2^nd defendant and in spite of the same, hectic

preparation was done to barricade and put up a structure.

According to the plaintiffs, if the same is done, it will

virtually block the ingress and egress to the property belonging

to the plaintiffs. It is under these circumstances, the suit

came to be filed seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

6.The 1st defendant filed a written statement and they took

a stand that S.No.42 is vested with the Mariamman temple and the

temple car was parked in that place and during the festival

days, the temple car used to be pulled and it was taken aroun