KUNJAN Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant is the appellant herein. THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he has got right of way through the pathway JKLM, which has been marked in red colour in the plaint plan and also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the suit pathway to reach his land in the north.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that he is the owner of the property situate in S.Nos.267/5 and 267/3b, which is of an extent of 90 cents and the Government also assigned 58 cents of land in S.No.295/1, which is situate south of the property owned by the first respondent/plaintiff in S.Nos.267/5, 267/3b and the total extent of the property in S.No.295/1 is 1.02 acres and out of 1.02 acres, the first respondent/plaintiff was assigned 58 cents and the land in S.No.295/1 is a barren land belonging to the Government and one Chellamuthu Aasari, was assigned 15 cents of land in S.No.295/1 and the first respondent/plaintiff was using the pathway available in S.No.295/1 to reach his land in S.Nos.267/5 and 267/3b and the pathway was shown in red colour and was marked as 'JKLM' in the plaint plan and the first respondent/plaintiff has no other way, except the pathway marked as 'JKLM' in the plaint plan to reach his property in S.Nos.267/5, 267/3b and Chellamuthu Aasari, never interfered with the enjoyment of the pathway by the first respondent/plaintiff and the said Chellamathu Asari, contrary to the terms of assignment, sold the pathway to the first defendant and therefore, the sale in favour of the first defendant is illegal. Moreover, the assignment in favour of the Chellamuthu Aasari, was also cancelled by a reason of the sale of the property by him and as the defendants were interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit pathway, the suit was filed for the relief stated above.

(3.) THE Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit holding that as per Ex.A12, the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, the pathway was mentioned by the Revenue Officials and per the Commissioner's report, there is no other pathway for the first respondent/plaintiff to reach his land and therefore, the plaintiff has proved his case and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, this Second Appeal.