GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. C ASOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful and undaunted plaintiff as appellant in the present second appeal has challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No. 64 of 2000 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu and in Appeal Suit No. 32 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Pattukottai.

(2.) The present suit has been instituted for declaring that the plaintiff is having easmentary right over the suit pathway which is in existence in RS. No. 52C/16B2 and also for passing permanent and mandatory injunctions, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as defendant.

(3.) It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land comprised in old R.S. No. 52C/14, new R.S. No. 52C/7B3. The plaintiff has constructed a house in the said survey number. In front of the house of the plaintiff, a pathway is in existence, running north south and subsequently towards east and running east-west and joined on main road. The pathway in dispute has been described as 'ABCD' in the plaint plan and the same is in existence from time immemorial. The said pathway commences from the main road at point' AB' and joined on the main road at point 'CD'. The said pathway is nothing but a public pathway which is in existence from time immemorial. The house owners on either side are using the same. The house of the defendant is situate on the southern side of the suit pathway and the defendant is the owner of R.S. No. 52C-16. The father of the defendant by name Chandrakasa Pullavarayar has prevented the occupiers on either side of the suit pathway from using the same in the year 1973 and the dispute has been referred to village panchayat and subsequently a Muchalika has come into existence. In the year 1992, Natham survey has been conducted. During Natham survey, the suit pathway has been detailed in Field Measurement Book as public pathway. In Natham survey, land of the plaintiff has been sub divided as 52C-7B3 and 52C-7B4. The land of the defendant has been sub divided as 52C-16B1, 16B2 and 16B3. Now the defendant has made attempt to prevent the plaintiff and others from using the suit pathway and also tried to put up construction in R.S. No. 52C-16B2 and the disputed area has been shown as 'MNOP' in the plaint plan. The plaintiff has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Orathanad. But, no fruitful action has come out. The plaintiff is having easmentary right over the suit pathway. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.