The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the words 'adjacent owners of the lands' in Exs.A2 and A.3, and the determination that the private pathway was intended only for the user of the original owners and their successors in interest.

The first defendant, who was unsuccessful before the courts below, is the appellant.

2. The subject matter of the suit is a small strip of land, which is marked in the plaint plan, comprised in Survey No.1780/2A1 of Ootacamund Town, which lies on the south of the plaintiff's property and to some extent on the north of the first defendant's property. It seems, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had opened two doorways in her property on the northern boundary, in order to have egress and ingress, over the disputed lane. Therefore, the respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, that the passage lying to the south of his property, coloured blue in the plaint plan, is the private passage, over which a right has been granted only to the plaintiff and other successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan; for mandatory injunction to close the two doors opened on the northern wall of the building belonging to the first defendant, thereby to restore the status quo and for permanent injunction.

3. The main case of the plaintiff/respondent as seen from the averments in the plaint is that the disputed pathway exclusively belonged to the successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan, who owned this property originally, later on sold as house sites to various persons retaining the private passage, only for the purpose of the user by their successors in interest. In this way, it is contended in the plaint, that though the defendant is on the southern side of the pathway, she has no right to use the private pathway, not intended for her, but contrary to the fact, she had opened the doors, thereby attempting to use the private pathway, which was intended only for the users of the said survey number, where it is situated.

4. The appellant/first defendant, resisted the suit on the ground, that even as per the documents relied on by the plaintiff and her predecessors in interest, the passage, for which right was claimed, was intended only for the user by the adjacent owners, including the person like the first defendant, who is owning property, adjacent to the pathway and it was not intended for the exclusive use of owner of the said survey alone, being the successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan.

5. The learned District Munsif, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the materials placed before him, in a lengthy and elaborate judgment, has come to the conclusion, that the suit pathway was intended only for the successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan, in which the adjacent owner viz., the first defendant has no right of any kind and in this way, he is not entitled to use the pathway also by opening doors on the northern wall of his property. Thus concluding, the suit came to be decreed against the first defendant with costs, which was sought to be assailed by the first defendant before the first appellate court in A.S.NO.41/90 on the file of the District Judge, Ootacamund.

6. The learned District Judge, considering the elaborate and detailed judgment of the learned District Munsif, as well as analysing and assessing the recitals in the documents relied on by the plaintiff, unable to take different view, has confirmed the findings, thereby dismissing the appeal, which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. This Court while admitting the second appeal has formulated the following substantial question of law for consideration.

Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated by the wrong interpretation of Exs.A2 and A.3.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Raghunathan and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B. Ramamoorthy.

9. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is whether the words used in Exs.A2 & A3 viz., "adjacent owners of the lands", should include the appellant/first defendant also and in this view, the first defendant being the adjacent owner is entitled to use the pathway also, even as per the recitals