NANJAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. MARAPPA GOUNDER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Additional plaintiffs 2 to 7, who are legal heirs of original plaintiff in O.S. No. 105 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam, (renumbered as O.S. 87 of 1982, on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam), are the appellants.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the title over the suit property and also for other consequential reliefs which are described thus:

(3.) In the plaint, it is averred that the property originally belonged to one Sankarappa Gounder, being his ancestral property and the original plaintiff purchased the same on 27.11.1970 for valuable consideration of Rs. 3,000. The property included in the sale deeds is 2 acres and 933/4 cents in S.F. Nos. 369 and 370 along with the cart track. It is said that Sankarappa Gounder was raising crops and subsequent to the sale plaintiff is in possession of the suit property from the date of sale deed and he also dug a well and installed an electric motor pumpset. It is his further case that the suit cart track as shown in the plan attached to the plaint is starting from the Panchayat Board Road which is situated on the southern portion of the first defendant's land. It is his further case that a cart track having a width of 10 feet starts from the south western corner of the first defendant's property and it goes upto the southern end of the plaintiff's property. This, according to the appellant, is absolutely necessary for their enjoyment and plaintiff and his predecessors were in enjoyment of the same for the last more than 40 years. It is said that over the suit property, defendants have no right. But they are adjoining property owners. Due to some ill -feeling prior to the institution of the suit, -they are interfering with their peaceful possession and are attempting to prevent them from using the cart track. The defendants have no manner of right to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit cart track. It is said that the plaintiffs have no other way to reach the suit pathway. In view of the conduct of the defendants, the suit was necessitated, and the plaintiff prays for declaration of title over the suit property and also claims an easementary right over the suit cart track. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the alleged easement is claimed thus: