G.VENKATACHALAM Vs. SEERANGA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for permanent injunction laid for protecting plaintiff's right of way from the threat of disturbance by the defendant, has come forward with the present appeal. The trial Court dismissed the suit, whereas the first appellate Court decreed the suit. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) The admitted facts are:

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that the pathway indicated in Ext.A-1 partition deed does not exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. The Salem-Meiyanoor Road is on the east of the property of the plaintiff, and the defendant's property lies to the immediate west of the said road. The plaintiff has a well-marked east-west pathway to access his property from the Meiyanoor Road on the east. The defendant's property lie between the Main Road on the east and the plaintiff's property on the west. Since the plaintiff has his own independent access from the main Road on the east, the plaintiff had never used the defendant's property as a pathway even after the partition. The plaintiff wantonly claimed the water channel running in the defendant's property with an object to harass the defendant. No necessity for easement of necessity to arise.