Actor Trisha Krishnan has amicably resolved a dispute with her neighbour over possible structural damage to her property, resulting in the Madras High Court ordering a refund of the court fees she had paid when filing a civil suit earlier this year.
The case began in January when Ms. Krishnan filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop her neighbours, living at Cenotaph Road Second Lane in Chennai, from continuing demolition or construction activities on the eastern wall. She argued that such activities could destabilize the structural integrity of her house.
When the interim injunction application was brought before Justice N. Sathish Kumar on January 24, the judge paid attention to the shared wall between Ms. Krishnan’s and her neighbour’s houses. Both properties had originally been developed by their previous owners, which compounded the complexity of the situation.
Ms. Krishnan had purchased her property in 2005, while her neighbours, Mr. Meyappan and Ms. Kaveri, acquired theirs in 2023. They started demolishing their existing building to redevelop the property. The shared wall, a crucial element for the structural support of both houses, posed a significant concern.
Justice Kumar noted this shared wall’s importance: “Considering the nature of the housing property more fully described in the schedule to the application where two units are built on an area which was developed by the predecessors in title and the pipes leading to the overhead tank and drainage system are housed by the common wall and the common wall supports both units, this court is of the view that if the common wall is demolished or damaged without taking adequate steps and safety measures to prevent any likelihood of damage to the suit property, the same will lead to serious consequences like falling of structure,” the judge remarked.
Initially, the court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ms. Krishnan. “This court is of the view that the applicant has established that there is a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction and if the respondents are not restrained by way of interim injunction, there is a likelihood of causing peripheral injury to the applicant. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant,” the judge wrote in his statement.
The interim injunction was periodically extended while the parties considered their options and explored potential resolutions to the conflict.
. On March 21, 2024, Ms. Krishnan’s mother and her neighbour appeared before the High Court, and attempts were made to settle the matter out of court.
These efforts paid off as the parties managed to settle the dispute amicably. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman disposed of the case by recording a joint compromise memo. This memo was signed by Ms. Krishnan and her neighbours, Mr. Meyappan, his wife Ms. Kaveri, and their legal counsel.
Justice Raman then directed the High Court Registry to refund Ms. Krishnan’s court fees as per the relevant rules. The successful resolution of this case highlights the importance of dialogue and compromise, even in situations fraught with potential legal complexities.
Interestingly, this case sheds light on common legal conflicts faced by homeowners in rapidly developing urban areas like Chennai. As more properties undergo redevelopment, understanding the legal implications of shared structures becomes crucial. Ms. Krishnan’s case serves as a significant example of how legal interventions can help protect property rights while emphasizing the benefits of amicable resolutions over prolonged legal battles.
Moreover, the Madras High Court’s stance in this particular case ensures that property owners take necessary precautions to prevent damage during any construction activity. It underscores the court’s commitment to upholding property rights and maintaining structural safety standards.
The amicable settlement of this dispute not only brings relief to the actor but also sets a precedent for resolving similar issues in the future. The refund of court fees marks a fair closure to what began as a potentially disruptive conflict, reflecting the administrative efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.
This case, alongside others, emphasizes the role of the judiciary in balancing development needs with individual property rights and safety, encouraging responsible construction practices and clear communication among parties involved.
