K.THAVAMANIGURU Vs. PACKIYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2006, having suffered decrees both before the trial Court and as well as before the first appellate Court, has now come before this Court with this Second Appeal. The suit was laid to remove certain obstruction caused by the second defendant in a pathway described in the second schedule to the plaint. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that the property described in the first schedule to the plaint originally belonged to one Muthusamy Mupanar, on whose demise, it devolved on his son Karuppasamy. On Karuppasamy's death, it again devolved on the plaintiffs. According to the rough sketch appended to the plaint, the plaintiffs' property is situated on the western extremity. To the south of the plaintiffs' property runs a pathway, and further south is situate the properties of the first and second defendants. In other words, the above referred to pathway bisects the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. This pathway ends about the western boundary of the plaintiffs' property and provides access to the plaintiffs to the main road on the east. The plaintiffs states that their house opens on this pathway in the south. The plaintiffs would further say that the second defendant's property is situate to the south of the eastern half of the pathway. This portion provides entry point to the street on the east. The plaintiffs allege that the second defendant has put up a platform like structure closing the pathway and denied the plaintiffs' right to access the main road on the east.

(3.) The first defendant remained ex-parte before the trial Court and the second defendant traces the title to his property under Ext.B.2 partition deed dated 08.04.1924. The second defendant has purchased the property in 1987 under Ex.B3 from one of the descendants of the share under Ext.B.2 and he also admits how the property in the first schedule had devolved on the plaintiffs. He further would say that the plaintiffs property opens only on the north and there is a street on the north.