A ARUMUGAM Vs. P M SAYINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he has got a right of pathway over the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the approach road having 40 feet width and 100 feet length so as to have access to the appellant's property.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the plaintiff/ appellant is the owner of 4.50 acres in Survey No.174 and P.P. Murugaian and his sons namely the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of 8.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos.175, 176 and 204/A2 adjoining the property belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. As per the master plan, Survey Nos.174, 175 and 175 were notified as industrial area and the defendants 1 and 2 and their father Murugaian converted the total extent of 8.60 acres in Survey Nos.175, 176 and 204/A2 as residential areas and applied for layout in the year 1992 and the layout was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning in Proceedings No.306/92 and the same was also approved by the ninth respondent on 08.04.1992. THEy named the property as J.J. Nagar and authorised the eighth respondent to sell the property by appointing him as Power Agent and several plots were sold in J.J. Nagar and houses were constructed.

(3.) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation, as the plaintiff/appellant has not taken any steps from 1999 till 2006 to file a suit and the plaintiff has also did not come to Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has no right over the 40 feet width road in the original layout approved by the authority. THE First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and further held that the plaintiff/appellant has got access to the main road through East West Pillaiyar Road and he has not filed the suit within three years from the date of reply given by the Director of Town and Country Planning and the appellant had no title to the suit property and therefore the appellant cannot ask for declaration. Hence the second appeal.