SINGARAJ REPRESENTED BY POWER AGENT NAGARAJAN Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2017 made in A.S.No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 made in O.S.No.864 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below. The appellant filed O.S.No.864 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his use of pathway 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' to reach his properties. According to the appellant, he is having 2/10 shares in pathway 'A' and 'B' and he has easementary right by prescription in pathway 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'. His predecessor in title had the easementary right to use 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' pathway and the appellant purchased the said pathway by two sale deeds dated 20.10.2005 and 10.05.2006. His right of pathway is mentioned in the schedule in both the sale deeds, which are mentioned as Exs.A1 and A The respondents have interfered with his right of use of pathway 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'. Hence, he has come out with the above suit.

(3.) The second respondent filed written statement and the same was adopted by the respondents 1, 3 and 4. The respondents denied all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the appellant has no easementary right in respect of pathway 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' and also denied that he has 2/10 shares in pathway 'A' and 'B'. According to the respondents, the appellant has an alternative pathway.