Streets maintained by the Municipality are public street.

Somasundaram, J.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. No.598 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif of Turaiyur are the appellants in S.A. No.2146 of 1986. The plantiff in O.S. No. 1829 of 1980 on the file of the same court is the appellant in S.A. No. 2147 of 1986. The defendant in both the suits is the respondent in these second appeals. The second plaintiff in O.S. No. 598 of 1981 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1829 of 1980 is the wife of the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 598 of 1981. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit, O.S. 598/87.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 598 of 1981 for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to remove the fence put up by the defendant on the southern boundary of the suit properties, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs, their men and servants having access from the suit properties/to the road on the south; and for declaration that the defendants refusal of permission to put up construction in the suit properties as per the plans submitted by the plaintiffs is illegal and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs putting up constructions in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.598 of 1981 is as follows:

The suit properties were originally belonged to one Krishnaswami Reddiar and they are bounded on the south by the Local Fund Road. The said Krishnaswami Reddiar was having access to the said Local Fund Road running on the south of the suit properties and it is a public street intended for the use of the public. The said road was maintained by the panchayat when there was a panchayat. Subsequently when the panchayat was upgraded as the defendant municipality the said road is being maintained by the defendant-municipality. The said Krishnaswami Reddiar sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs and from the date of purchase the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties and they are having access to the suit properties from the road on the south. Just before the filing of the suit the defendant-municipality put up a wire fence with stone pillars along the southern boundary of the suit properties obstructing the, plaintiffs' access to the suit properties from the road on the south. The road on the south of the suit properties is a public street maintained by the defendant-municipality and the defendant has no right to obstruct the plaintiffs hurried access to the suit properties on the north from the street in question. The plaintiffs applied to the defendant with necessary plans seeking permission to put up constructions in the suit properties, but, the defendant, without any justification, refused the permission. The said refusal is illegal and void.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending as follows:

The property north of the suit street originally belonged to Krishnaswami Reddiar. At no point of time the suit properties were reached through the street in question. The suit street is not a public street. There has never been a public street on the south of the suit properties. The suit properties were reached throughout only from the property situated on the west. The deft put up the fence with stone pillars because the defendant has got right to put up such a fence since the street in question is exclusive property of the defendant and the plaintiffs have no right of access to the street on the south of the suit properties. The property south of the suit properties were purchased by the then town panchayat on 26.5.1955 and the town panchayat built its office in or about 1964 and the suit street was laid for the private use of the panchayat and, therefore, the suit street is a private street belonging to the defendant municipality. The plaintiffs cannot claim any right of access to the suit street on the south which be