SUNDARI Vs. GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant in O.S.No.153 of 2011, who suffered a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has got a natural right to reach the road on the east of A schedule property from every point it abuts the road and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove the encroachment made by the 1st defendant in the 'B' Schedule property on its conformation by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.7 of 2013, has come up with the second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he owns property bearing D.No.15D/4, Thirmanjana Veedhi, Koranad, Mayiladudurai. The suit property is bounded by Thirumanjana veedhi on the east and cauvery line karai on the north. According to the plaintiff, the main entrance of the property is facing east opening on Thirumanjana Veedhi. The plaintiff would contend that the 1st defendant had encroached upon the Thirumanjana Veedhi and put up a hut obstructing the access of the plaintiff to Thirumanjana Veedhi. Claiming that the plaintiff has right of access to the public road from every point his property abuts the same, the plaintiff sought for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the property on which he had put up a hut is a Government poramboke land and it is not a road poramboke. Being Government poramboke land, the plaintiff has no right over the same and he cannot claim a easementry right as if his property abuts the public Road.