S.A(MD)No.26 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

S.A(MD)No.26 of 2022

J.Nishanthi

.. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,

Rep. by its Superintending Engineer,

(TANGEDCO), K.Pudur,

Madurai - 625 007.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

(TANGEDCO), Subramaniapuram Division,

Subramaniapuram,

Madurai - 625 012.

3.The Assistant Engineer,

(TANGEDCO), Arasamaram Circle,

Old Kuyavarpalayam Road,

Madurai - 625 009.

.. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 17.08.2021 passed

in A.S.No.6 of 2020, on the file of the Second Additional Sub-Court,

Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2019 passed

in O.S.No.311 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Munsif

Court, Madurai Town.

For Appellant

: Mr.J.Barathan

For Respondents

: Mr.B.Ramanathan

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

1/10

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

S.A(MD)No.26 of 2022

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 f