A S MACHAIAH Vs. G M GOPALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendants' second appeal is against the concurrent findings of the courts below.

(2.) The respondent herein was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 333/67 on the file of the Munsiff, Mercara. That suit was filed under S. 26 of the CPC read with order 1 Rule 8. In other words, it was representative in character seeking a declaration in rem. The declaration was for declaring that the foot-path shown as public foot-pa,th in the plaint map and which runs through Kanbylu estate, as foot-path for pedestrians only, and not a public road for, vehicular traffic movement and that the plaintiff has a right to keep the gate at the place where it now stands and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the path inside the estate including the public foot-path .shown in the plaint map for public purpose of taking vehicles and to restrain them from tampering with or removing the gate erected by the plaintiff.

(3.) The circumstances leading to the filing of the suit may be briefly summarised as follows as some of the facts are not in dispute.