MANOHARAN Vs. ELAYA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode. He filed the above suit for a bare injunction against the defendants. The suit properties are described under two heads. The suit item No.1 is described as appellant/plaintiff's property in R.S.No.644/1B while the suit item No.2 is described as 20 feet wide common pathway in R.S.No.644/1C, running through the land of the respondents/ defendants.

(2.) The case of the appellant/plaintiff in nutshell is as follows. The appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit item No.1 through a sale deed dated 23.08.2007 (registration copy of which is marked as Ex.A1). In the said sale deed, the plaintiff was given a right to use 20 feet wide pathway (suit item No.2), which branches out from Erode-Chennimalai road. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he as well as his predecessors in title were using the said pathway and that there is no other pathway to reach his land (suit item No.1). His further contention is that the said 20 feet wide pathway is on the northern side of the respondents'/ defendants' property and that the respondents with an ulterior motive to make the plaintiff to part away with his property for a low price, are attempting to put up permanent structure in item No.2 of the suit property. He has therefore, filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants either from encroaching upon the item No.2 of the suit properties or in any other manner interfering with the usage of item No.2 of the suit properties to reach item No.1 of the suit properties by the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants on the following grounds: