The owner of land adjoining a public road has a right of access to that road from all points on the boundary of their land. If any obstruction is caused over the road margin securing such access, the person entitled to have such access can certainly enforce that right.

This revision is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Court below, (learned District Judge, Salem) in C.M.A. Nos.53 and 54 of 1992 confirming the orders passed by the trial court in I.A. Nos. 1247 of 1991 and 390 of 1992.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision can be stated as follows :

The revision petitioner herein plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their subordinates from in any way altering the fence or putting up any sort of obstruction in the suit road and preventing the plaintiff from using the road to reach his property. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.64/3, 64/4A, 64/ 5B and 64/ 2 in Meeyanur village. The said property originally belonged to his grandmother Thulasammal as per the registered sale deed dated 6-9-1944. She executed a registered Will in favour of one K. V. Krishna Iyer on 1-9-1960. On her death, Krishna Iyer succeeded her and became the owner of the property and he died leaving the plaintiff and his other sons and daughters as his legal heirs. The mother of the plaintiff, one Ramathayammal, executed a registered Will dated 1-6-1987 and as per the Will the plaintiff is entitled to S. Nos. 64/2, 64/3, 64/4A and 64/5B. The Salem Bangalore Main Road is running east of the plaintiff's property. There is a road running north to south and the said road is a public road. It is classified as road poramboke under a settlement deed and situate in S. No. 64/ 8 and shown in red colour in the rough plan. On the east of the said road is Achuvan Eri wherein the new bus stand of the Salem Municipality is situate and the same is shown as blue colour. It is stated that the said road is in existence from time immemorial and it has been classified as road poramboke even in the settlement proceedings and it has been declared as a public road. It is used by the public including the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title for a long time. The road is an access to the plaintiff's property and is now used by the vehicles in the new bus stand also. The Government cannot prevent the plaintiff from using the road to have access to their property. The Government cannot convert the road as road margin at any other, place. They also cannot put up any fence or construction in the road and road-margin in such a way to prevent the plaintiff to have access on the property. While so, the defendants and its subordinates on 19-10-1991 came in a body at about 11 p.m. during midnight and attempted to put up construction in the road and road margins and attempted to alter the road by which the defendants have attempted to prevent the plaintiff from having an access to his property through the suit road. The illegal act of the defendants was prevented by the plaintiff. However, they are proclaiming that they are going to prevent the plaintiff from using the suit property as road to reach his properties. Hence the petitioner is constrained to file a suit and also filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction of the same nature till the disposal of the suit, in I.A. No. 1247 of 1991.

3. In the counter filed by the third respondent in the application, which was adopted by the other respondents, it is stated that the property described in S. No. 64/8 is classified as cart track poramboke. It has never been used by any one including the plaintiff as a right or a pathway. Moreover the property in S. No. 64/8 cannot be used as a road as the land is lower in level by 8 feet and surrounded by the drainage water from Alagapuram village, Echuvaneri, moffusil bus stand. There is no such road in S. No. 64/4A in his patta land. Since the suit land is situate abutting the Highway road and the Municipal road and which is a very valuable land, there were attempts by people to encroach the suit land with ulterior motive to have wrongful gain in order to avoid encroachment and to avoid loss to