SAKUNTHALA Vs. RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant, who was unsuccessful before the courts below, is the appellant.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit is a small strip of land, which is marked in the plaint plan, comprised in Survey No. 1780/2a1 of Ootacamund Town, which lies on the south of the plaintiff's property and to some extent on the north of the first defendant's property. It seems, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had opened two doorways in her property on the northern boundary, in order to have egress and ingress, over the disputed lane. Therefore, the respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, that the passage lying to the south of his property, coloured blue in the plaint plan, is the private passage, over which a right has been granted only to the plaintiff and other successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan; for mandatory injunction to close the two doors opened on the northern wall of the building belonging to the first defendant, thereby to restore the status quo and for permanent injunction.

(3.) THE main case of the plaintiff/respondent as seen from the averments in the plaint is that the disputed pathway exclusively belonged to the successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan, who owned this property originally, later on sold as house sites to various persons retaining the private passage, only for the purpose of the user by their successors in interest. In this way, it is contended in the plaint, that though the defendant is on the southern side of the pathway, she has no right to use the private pathway, not intended for her, but contrary to the fact, she had opened the doors, thereby attempting to use the private pathway, which was intended only for the users of the said survey number, where it is situated.