G.Loganathan vs G.Selvaraj
In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1984 (4) SCC 376 (Ayyaswami Gounder and others Vs. Munnuswamy Gounder and others), 2012 (2) MWN Civil 295 (C.Durairaj Vs. K.C.Vellai) and 1991 (1) L.W. 339 (Saraswathy and another Vs. Ramaiya Nadar and another) and 1998 (1) CTC 22 (V.Devarajan Vs. R.Purushothaman and three others). A perusal of the principles of law enunciated in the above said decision would go to show that when material and substantial injury is likely to be caused to a co-owner in the enjoyment of his property, injunction can be granted against the other co-owners and in this case, when it is seen that the first item of the suit properties can be enjoyed only by having access through the second item and when the defendants are shown and established to be interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit properties by the plaintiff by obstructing his enjoyment as regards the second item, it is seen that the first appellate Court has rightly taken into consideration, the total aspects of the case in the right perspective and accordingly, granted the relief of injunction also against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right in using the second item of suit properties as an access to reach the first item of the suit properties for enjoying the same. By way of the grant of the above said relief, the right to enjoyment of the second item of the suit properties by the defendants is not put to an end, on the other hand, only the right of the plaintiff is safeguarded from the unlawful acts of the defendants in preventing his enjoyment of the first item of the suit properties through the second item of the suit properties. Accordingly, it is found that the grant of relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff by the first appellate Court also does not call for any interference.