THUKKARAM Vs. SHANTHI VARADHARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has preferred the second appeal, aggrieved against the concurrent finding of the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by him for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the absolute owner of the 'A' schedule property including the common pathway measuring 2= feet in width and 42= feet in length, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1983. The first defendant is the owner of the 'B' schedule property, including the pathway measuring 2= feet in width and 42= feet in length, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 23.05.1985. The plaintiff, his tenants and the first defendant are using the said common pathway to reach their respective portions. The plaintiff has a Press in the front side of 'A' schedule property, which got direct entry from the street. Except the common pathway, there is no other pathway for the plaintiff to reach the rear portion (behind the Press) of 'A' schedule property and the first floor. The first defendant is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's right to use the common pathway and issued a notice on 21.04.1988 claiming the pathway as his absolute property, for which the plaintiff caused a suitable reply dated 02.05.1988. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant, by filing written statement and reply statement, contending that she is the purchaser of the rear portion of the 'A' schedule property along with pathway from the second defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff; and that with the knowledge of the plaintiff, the entire right of using the suit pathway was sold away to the first defendant and the plaintiff, who is aware of the alieantion of the pathway by his wife to the first defendant, has now come forward with the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The first defendant allowed the plaintiff and his tenants to use the pathway only on licence basis and the first defendant had terminated the licence granted to the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice dated 21.04.1988. Hence, the plaintiff has no right in the pathway, which had been exclusively purchased by the first defendant. Therefore, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.