Appeal dismissed as the second appeal involves purely factual issues without a substantial question of law. The court held the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the construction permissibly sanctioned by authorities.
Second appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.06.2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 11.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A. No.656 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.11905 of 2019
Dr.A.Krishnamoorthy ... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs
Chennai – 600 003.
Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2018 made in A.S.No.218/2016 confirming the decreetal order of the City Civil Court in O.S. No.4277 of 2010 dated 03.02.2016.
For Appellant : K.Rajasekaran
The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018 passed in A.S.No.218/2016, on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2016, passed in O.S. No.4277 of 2010, on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Chennai and the Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to demolish the illegal construction put up by the defendants 1 to 4 on the eastern side of the plaintiff's compound wall of the plaint B schedule property without leaving any set back and without the approval of the defendants 5 & 6.
plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 4 had already acquired their property and enjoying the same and in such view of the matter, as determined by the Courts below, there is no question of any blockage of air and light to the plaintiff's property in the light of the alleged construction put up by the defendants and accordingly, it is found that conveniently, the plaintiff had not instituted the suit for enforcing his alleged claim of easementary right and on the other hand, had levied the suit for seeking only mandatory injunction against the alleged illegal construction said to have been put up by the defendants 1 to 4 in their property. On the abovesaid grounds alone, it is found that the plaintiff's suit, as such, is misconceived and cannot be maintained.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
S.A. No.656 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.11905 of 2019
BR(CO) SP(24/09/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second appeal is maintainable when the appeal involves purely factual questions without any substantial question of law.
Whether the appellant has locus standi to question the construction authorized by authorities when no proof of deviation exists.
Whether the suit for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction is maintainable against statutory authorities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. A. Krishnamoorthy
Shingaraj
Mahaveer Jain
Kanagaraj
Selvaraj
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
