Back
PAREED PILLAY
THOMMAN – Appellant
Versus
KURIAKO – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The main legal principle established is that a public road can be presumed to be dedicated through long-standing, open, and continuous use by the public, even if there is no explicit proof of dedication by the landowner (!) (!) (!) .
Maintenance of the road by a local authority or government is a significant factor supporting the presumption of dedication, and such maintenance can imply acceptance and recognition of the public’s right to use the road (!) (!) .
Dedication does not necessarily require a formal deed or written instrument; it can be inferred from the acts of user and the conduct of the landowner over a long period (!) (!) (!) .
The period of user required to establish dedication is not fixed; long and uninterrupted use by the public, especially when openly exercised and acquiesced to by the landowner, is sufficient to raise a presumption of dedication (!) .
The existence of a public road can be established through evidence of its use, the presence of markers such as fences or tyre marks, and records maintained by local authorities, regardless of whether the road begins or ends in a public place (!) (!) (!) .
Even if the road does not connect two public places directly or terminates in a private or inaccessible area, it can still be considered a public road if the evidence supports its use by the public for access purposes (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding dedication can be met through inference from long-term user and maintenance, and explicit proof of dedication is not always necessary (!) (!) .
The judgment confirmed that the existence of the road since a specific historical period and the evidence of its maintenance by the Panchayat supported the conclusion that it is a public road, and the court rightly set aside the appellate decision in favor of the trial court’s findings (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
1. Plaintiff who succeed in the trial Court and rooted in the lower appellate Court is the appellant. The Sub Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove dedication of the road by the defendants.
2. Existence of the plaint schedule road since 1121 M.E is spoken to by Pwl. In an earlier suit (O.S. 50 of 1958) with respect to the very same road pw. 3, an advocate commissioner had filed Exts. A-2 and B-1 reports. pw. 3 has reported about the existence of the road in Ext. A-2 and estimated its age as 10 years. Along with Ext. A-2 report pw. 3 bad also filed a sketch showing the location of the road. in the present
case pw. 7 commissioner has prepared Ext. C-1 report and Ext. C-1(a) sketch. The sketch Ext. C-1(a) shows that the road branches from Kaliyar-Koduveli road and goes south up to Manchodu nilam. It is in evidence that thereafter the road passes through paddy fields leading to Neyyassery. Of course, the width of the road when it passes through the paddy ffields is narrower than the road up to Manchodu nilam. pw. 7's evidence shows that the road separates the properties on either side by kayalas and fences. pw. 7 also
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
