K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. A PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.215 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai and in the suit filed under Order VII Rule I of CPC, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the suit schedule property is a common cart track, etc. The suit was taken on file for hearing by the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai, aggrieved by which the defendant has filed the present petition.

(2.) It was the case of the revision petitioner/defendant that in the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who duly filed a report before the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai that there was a newly erected compound wall in S.No.45/15B and as such, the claim of the plaintiff that S.No.45/15B is a cart track is completely contrary to the report, thereby the plaintiff attempts to mislead the Court by raising false averments in the plaint. It was the further case of the revision petitioner that on refusal by the revision petitioner for providing access to his property through "A" schedule property purchased by the revision petitioner, the plaintiff damaged the compound wall, which resulted in lodging of a complaint and registration of a case in Crime No.167 of 2017 on the file of the Sethubavachathiram Police Station. The plaintiff has approached the Civil Court with unclean hands by describing the suit property as cart track, whereas a compound wall is in existence in the said survey number, which was also demolished by the plaintiff himself.

(3.) The revision petitioner stated that the facts remains that S.No.45/15A was purchased by him from the plaintiff's family members and S.No.45/15B was already vested with the petitioner by way of execution of probate by his father and there was a gate fixed by the petitioner in S.No.45/15B. It was further stated that on being destroyed the compound wall with hooligans, the plaintiff false averred that S.No.45/15B is a cart track, thereby attempts to defeat the rights of the revision petitioner. The sale deed dated 07.04.2004 executed by one Magesh demostrated that he was attempting to creat a new right of way, which was not in existence and the said Magesh derived no title to the right of way in S.No.45/15B and therefore, the entries made in the sale deed executed by the said Magesh have no legal consequences.