Statutory Limitation Bars Mandatory Injunction For Encroachments Existing Since 1985: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently clarified that a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove an encroachment is hit by the law of limitation if the plaintiff admits to the existence of the offending construction decades prior to filing the suit.

In a set of second appeals heard by Justice P.B. Balaji, the Court examined whether a party could claim ignorance of a physical encroachment until a court-appointed commissioner’s report was filed, despite prior knowledge. The Court held that when an encroachment has been in existence since 1985, seeking its removal in a suit filed much later is 'hopelessly time barred.'

Easement of Necessity vs. Mandatory Injunction

While the Court upheld the plaintiff's right to an easement of necessity, it emphasized that such rights must be exercised reasonably. The Bench noted that an easement of necessity cannot be claimed as a 'luxury' and should only encompass the minimum extent required for ingress and egress.

The Court has the following directions:

"The substantial question of law is answered in faovur of the appellant and the S.A.(MD)No.594 of 2021, is partly allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.123 of 2014 and restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, granting the relief of declaration alone. Insofar as other two Second Appeals in S.A.(MD)Nos.97 & 98 of 2022... accordingly, S.A.(MD)Nos. 97 & 98 of 2022 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Court’s Rationale on Limitation and Knowledge

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the facts of the present case, it has been brought out by the appellant in evidence that the construction put up over the suit pathway, no doubt being an encroachment, was even in the year 1985, which factum has been admitted by the plaintiff himself during trial. In such circumstances, the relief of mandatory injunction was hopelessly time barred and the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the well considered findings of the Trial Court... especially with regard to the refusal to grant the relief of mandatory injunction."

Background:

The dispute involved multiple suits filed between the parties. The respondent filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a pathway and a mandatory injunction to remove constructions put up by the appellant. Conversely, the appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from interfering with his enjoyment of the property.

The Trial Court had originally granted a declaration of the respondent's rights but refused the mandatory injunction, citing the long-standing nature of the construction since 1985. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this, believing the respondent's claim that he only realized the extent of encroachment after an Advocate Commissioner's report.

In the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, Justice Balaji found the First Appellate Court’s finding to be 'perverse.' The Court noted that since the plaintiff admitted during the trial that the construction existed since 1985, he could not claim the cause of action arose only after the commissioner's report. Consequently, the High Court restored the Trial Court's decree, maintaining the declaration of easement rights but setting aside the order for the removal of the construction.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.A.(MD)Nos.594 of 2021 and 97 & 98 of 2022
Case Title: V.M.Thangadurai Vs. L.Rajagopal
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.S,Kadarkarai
For the Respondent(s): Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 295