P SHANMUGA SUNDARAM Vs. M PERIASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PRAYER: Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal made in A.S.No.366 of 2002 dated 30.07.2004 confirming the judgement and decree of the Additinoal District Munsif's Court, Namakkal made in O.S.No.606 of 1993 dated 31.07.1997.) The unsuccessful defendants, who are representing themselves and representing the Villagers of Kariaperumalpudur, Sivanaikenpatty Village, Namakkal Taluk in both the Courts below are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to remove RSTU construction portion stated to have been constructed on the Panchayat road and for a declaration that neither the defendants nor the Villagers have any right to obstruct access to the road from any point at the CD level of the plaintiffs property and also for an injunction from putting up any obstruction.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that on the Eastern side of his property comprised in Survey No.291/2AA there is a Municipal road running North to South and just in front of his access to the road from his property. THE defendants have put up the construction, wherein they are keeping certain articles and materials belong to the temple of the Village. Since it obstructs his right of free iggress and egress to his property and on the basis that the said construction has been put up on the Municipal road, which is used as a road by public, the suit was filed. THE defense by the defendants was that it was not a Panchayat road but it was a Natham Puramboku and the Villagers are using it for the purpose of keeping the materials belong to the temple of the Village.

(3.) THE reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgement rendered by this Court in Muthammal (died) and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2006(3) MLJ 216 to the effect that if the disputed property is a grama natham, there was no question of issuance of any patty or entry made in Adangal etc. and the first occupier is entitled as a owner of the portion and in such circumstances, the decision arrived at by the Courts below, that no evidence has been produced by the defendants to show that the place is a grama natham, cannot be sustained, is not acceptable.