AZHAGAR Vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVA AROGYAMATHA KOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram in A.S.No.125 of 1987, confirming the decreeing of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is, the suit property is compound wall and on the north of that is the plaintiff church and on south of the compound wall, there is a public pathway through which the people of Tiruvallur village can pass. In the plaintiff church, the Christians of the village as well as others worship. THEre was a door in the compound wall leading to the road which was closed temporarily. THE street south of the compound wall is a common public pathway and it does not belong to any individual. THE defendants are claiming that the street south of the church as their exclusive pathway and they will not permit the plaintiff to open a doorway leading to the road south of the compound wall. THErefore, suit has been filed by the plaintiff that they have got a right to have the opening on the compound wall and to go to the public road on the south of it and the defendant shall not interfere with that as they have no right for the same.

(3.) IT is to be noted that Ex.B.1 is the judgment of the year 1921 and in that suit, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner gave a report and also a sketch which are marked as Exs.B.3 and B.4. A perusal of that reveals that certain areas were encroached upon by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff and that was agreed to be removed and a compromise was entered into and on the basis of the compromise decree, after demolishing certain buildings possession was handed over to the defendants ancestors as proved by Ex.B.2. IT is also seen that from Ex.B.5, that some portions demolished in excess of the compromise decree were allowed to be re-built by the order in the appeal. From this, it is clear that the area south of the suit property, viz., the compound wall of the church was not a public pathway and when that area was encroached, by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, the defendants' ancestors filed a suit and recovered possession.