Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi)Without removing the pandals at points GHIJSRQU as shown in the plaint plan, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff cannot use the suit cart track in any manner. Hence, it is just and necessary to grant mandatory injunction with a direction to remove the pandals at Point GHIJ and SRQU as shown in the plaint plan within a reasonable period or otherwise to do the same through court.

(vii)The 3rd Defendant is instigating the Defendants 1 and 2 to obstruct the cart track without any basis. Hence, it is added as a party to the suit. Therefore, it is just and necessary to restrain the 3rd Defendant from instigating and putting up any construction in the suit cart track or from interfering in any manner with the 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff's peaceful user of the suit cart track in any manner. Hence, the suit has been laid by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff seeking the relief of mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.

12.The First Appellate Court has tried both the Appeals A.S.No.46 of 1995 and A.S.No.100 of 1995 and on 03.04.1996 has allowed A.S.No.46 of 1995 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.149 of 1988 dated 20.03.1995 by granting the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff-Kuttiappa Gounder in O.S.No.149 of 1988 and also granted a relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants not to interfere with the ABCDEFG portion cart track mentioned in Ex.C.4. It granted three months time to execute the relief of mandatory injunction etc. However, the First Appellate Court has dismissed A.S.No.100 of 1995 thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.153 of 1989.

19.Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 that without a declaratory relief being prayed for by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, a relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted in the suit.

20.Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 8 that the First Appellate Court has looked into the entire gamut of oral and documentary evidence on record in a proper and real perspective and has come to a right conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (since deceased) is entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction and the relief of permanent injunction, which need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Second Appeal.

54.In view of the categorical admission of the 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff in para 6 of the Plaint that 'since the 12 feet breadth place GHIJ as shown in the Plaint plan is sufficient to take the carts, cattle, men and material etc. and further he has not objected the act of 2nd Defendant in constructing the house and to reside there and also coupled with the Exs.C.1 and C.3-Commissioner's Reports, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that pandal has been put adjacent to the 2nd Defendant's house and that the said pandal has not been put in GHIJ portion as made mention of by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff in the Plaint and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the Plaint. Unfortunately, the First Appellate Court has not dealt with the faculative aspects of the matter in a real and proper perspective and per contra, it granted the relief of mandatory injunction, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a valid one in the eye of law. Therefore, it is held by this Court that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in granting the relief of Mandatory Injunction in favour of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, [even though the 1st Respondent /Plaintiff has not sought the relief of Declaration in the Plaint in regard to the suit property] because of the simple fact that it is the admitted case of the parties that temple is the owner of the suit property and accordingly, the Substantial Question of Law No.1 is so answered.