JUDGMENT :- The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1992 rendered in A.S. No. 37 of 1988 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1987 rendered in O.S. No. 215 of 1981 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendant in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit on their behalf and on behalf of the villagers of Perumbakkam praying for declaration and permanent injunction as against the appellant herein on averments such as that the defendant's grandmother was granted patta for four cents of land in S. No. 132; that after the death of his grandmother, the defendant put up a construction in a larger extent than that of the four cents land adjoining the land in S. No. 153/2 encroaching upon the extent of 27' x 15' pathway lying on the South thereby obstructing the general public from proceeding to the river and the graveyard which has been indicated as ABCD in the plaint plan; that on being reported against with the Revenue authorities, the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar having inspected the spot, they have instructed the defendant to remove the wall and hence the suit for declaration to the effect that the pathway in the plaint rough plan in EFGH; that it is a common pathway for permanent injunction not to put up any more construction in the portion indicated as ABCD and for the mandatory injunction for demolishing the wall put up in the ABCD of the suit property.

3. This suit would be resisted by the defendant denying the contention of the plaintiffs that he has put up the construction over and above the 4 cents of land and has encroached upon the excess land used as a pathway by the general public; that there is no such pathway at all; that the construction had been put up 40 years back; that the measurement of the property of the defendant is East-West 30 links and North-South 11 links and by virtue of the long possession and enjoyment, the defendant has become absolutely entitled to this portion and hence would pray to dismiss the suit.

4. The trial Court, having framed five issues, would permit the parties to record their evidence conducting the trial, during which, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff, besides examining himself as P.W. 1, would also examine two more witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 for oral and mark three documents as Exs. A.1 to A.3 for documentary evidence, Ex. A. 1 dated 22-8-1973 being the sale deed in favour of the defendant, Ex. A.2 dated 4-3-1981 being the rough sketch and Ex. A.3 being the combined sketch of Perumbakkam village, Kanchee-puram Taluk of the year 1968.

5. On the part of the defendant, he would examine himself as D.W. 1 and also would examine yet another witness as D.W. 2 for oral evidence with no document marked for documentary evidence on his side. The Commissioner's report and sketch, both dated 26-11-1986, are marked as Exs. C.1 and C.2 as Court documents.

6. The trial Court, having traced the facts and circumstances of the case, in the manner extracted herebefore and having carefully examined them, would find, particularly with the help of the Court documents Exs. C.1 and C.2 and Ex. A.3 the combined sketch of the village, that the pathway on the Eastern side of the house of the defendant runs towards West and taking a turn at the place indicated 'BC', again goes through the place indicated as 'CDFIG' and reaching at point 'F' corner, again takes its turn on the South so as to reach the river, school and the main road.

7. The trial Court, would further find at point 'C', the breadth of the pathway is 8 feet thus belying the arguments of the defendant that there is no pathway on the South of his building; that apart from that in Ex. A.1 dated 22-8-1973 also, the pathway has been shown and according to this document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document