JUDGMENT : Challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2015 made in A.S.No.296 of 2014 on the file of the XVIII Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 made in O.S.No.1403 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1403 of 2011. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1403 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein or their subordinates from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. The suit property is described as a property measuring to an extent of 1246 sq. feet comprised in Old Survey No.208/82 and bearing present T.S.No.198 in Block No.41 of Thiruveethiamman koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. 3. It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property belongs to her and that she has put up a residential building in the property. The first respondent/ first defendant is the Corporation of Chennai and the second respondent/second defendant is the neighbour of the appellant/plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint itself that the second respondent/second defendant filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court against the first respondent/ first defendant alleging that the appellant/plaintiff has encroached a small portion of the public road and that such encroachment should be removed. Though the Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by observing that the encroachment of the road should be removed in the interest of the public, it is stated in the plaint, that on the basis of such observation of this Court, the second respondent/second defendant has instigated the first respondent/first defendant to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the property and that therefore, the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to file the civil suit. 4. Before the trial Court, the first respondent/first defendant did not contest the suit nor filed any written statement. However, relying upon the judgment of this Court wherein this Court has held that Civil Court cannot entertain a suit or proceedings, in respect of any action taken by the CMDA or Corporation in respect of the illegal construction and encroachment on roads and pavements, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. 5. However, relying upon the judgment of this Court wherein this Court has held that Civil Court cannot entertain a suit or proceedings, in respect of any action taken by the CMDA or Corporation in respect of the illegal construction and encroachment on roads and pavements, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.296 of 2014 before the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court held that suit is maintainable. However, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not proved his title and presumed that the suit property is a public road. 6. Both the Courts below have not considered the merits of the case on proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the Appellant/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, the above second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: ''1.Whether the first appellate Court is right in setting aside the finding of the trial Court that the suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court and confirming the judgment of the trial Court on a totally different line by misconstruing the documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A6? 2. Whether the Courts below are right in negativing the relief of permanent injunction when admittedly the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?'' 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant admitted that the first respondent/first defendant did not contest the suit or appeal and that the second defendant alone filed the written statement before the Court below. Further, he submitted that the first respondent/first defendant has no quarrel with the title or enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. However, the first respondent/first defendant may take action, if there is any encroachment in the road portion or illegal construction over the suit property by the plaintiff. 8. There is no appearance for the second respondent/ second defendant before this Court. 9. From the averments made in the plaint and the stand taken by the second respondent/second defendant in the written statement, there is no dispute regarding the suit property. 8. There is no appearance for the second respondent/ second defendant before this Court. 9. From the averments made in the plaint and the stand taken by the second respondent/second defendant in the written statement, there is no dispute regarding the suit property. It is evident that the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for injunction alleging that at the instigation of the second respondent/second defendant, the first respondent/first defendant has threatened to demolish the house of plaintiff. Absolutely, there is no issue regarding the plaintiff's title or enjoyment over the suit property. The counsel for the second respondent/second defendant admit that the suit property is the property of plaintiff. Both the respondent/defendants remained export before the trial Court and the appellate Court. 10. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff has put up construction over the suit property and the appellant/plaintiff is also in enjoyment of the same for a long time and therefore none of the respondents before this Court has raised any issue regarding the title or enjoyment over the suit property. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit before the City Civil Court is not maintainable. The judgments relied upon by the trial Court are cases where the appellant/plaintiff therein challenged the proceedings initiated by the local body regarding illegal construction or unlawful encroachment in public land. But, in the present case, title over the property is not in dispute and hence, the same logic cannot be applied by the trial Court to dismiss the suit. 11. The appellate Court did not consider the merits of the case. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. She was not cross examined by respondents/defendants. No valid reason is given by appellate Court to disbelieve the care of plaintiff. Hence, the findings of the lower Appellate Court are perverse. When the plaintiff's title and possession are not in dispute, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for injunction in respect of the suit property. However decree for injunction may not come in the way of the first respondent/first defendant taking action against the plaintiff for removal of unauthorized construction or encroachment over the public property if any. 12. In that view, this Second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of Courts below are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.1403 of 2011 stands decreed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 12. In that view, this Second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of Courts below are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.1403 of 2011 stands decreed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.