JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1993 passed in A.S.No.17 and 18 of 1993 by the learned District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1566 of 1984 and 1402 of 1992 dated 27.4.1992 by the learned District Munsif Court Salem, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1402 of 1984 and defendant in O.S.No.1566 of 1984 has filed the above second appeals.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

(a) Originally entire property belonged to the family of one Mannnar Achari and Chandriah Achari, who are brothers. After the death of Chandriah Achari, Mannar Achari and the widow of Chandriah Achari and her children entered into a partition deed on 19.5.1942, whereby the suit property was allotted to Chellammal and her sons.The property referred in the rough plan as DGFH was allotted to Mannar Achari, which was purchased by the defendant. Chellammal and her sons sold the entire property ABCD together with the lane CEFG to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendant demolished the old structure in DGFH and constructed a new house.When the defendant began to insert pipes in the GF wall, through which she wanted to drain the wastage water on to the lane CEFG.. The defendant has absolutely no right in the lane CEFG . In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs as well as the defendant filed the above suits.

(b) Denying the averments made in the plaints, the defendants have filed a written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suits.

3. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.1566 of 1984, whereas it dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1402 of 1984. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal.

4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(a) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the respondents are not entitled to the suit lane, when under Exs.A-3 and A-4 they have acquired only a right of way over the same?

(b) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the appellant herein is not entitled to the suit land, when the description of the concerned property in Exs.B-1, B-4, B-5 and B-6 clearly indicate that the suit lane was the property of Mannar Achari and was sold by him to Gopal Pathar and that the latter has sold the same to the appellant herein?

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is to be noted that aggrieved against the common judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.17 and 18 of 1993, passed by the learned District Judge, Salem, these two appeals have been preferred by the same person, namely, Mahalakshmiammal.

7. The learned Principal District Judge after elaborately discussing the facts and connected documents produced on either side accepted the case of the respondents in both the appeals

and accordingly, the learned Judge disposed of the above said two appeals in favour of the respondents.

8. It is seen that initially Mahalakshmiammal purchased a piece of land with tiled house from one Gopal Pather under Ex.B-3 dated 3.5.1975 and thereafter, she put up some construction in that land by demolishing the old house, which is shown as DGFH in the rough plan. The dispute arose between Mahalakshmiammal and the defendants only with regard to the lane, which is situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s land, which is shown as CEFG in the rough plan. The case of Mahalakshmiammal is that she purchased the property from Gopal Pathar along with the lane CEFG portion. In that portion Kandaswamy and Perumayeeammal are entitled to use the lane for reaching Subramanyapillai street which is lying east west on the northern side to the house of Mahalakshmiammal.

9. The said Kandaswamy and Perumayee-ammal have no other right over that lane except the easementary right and therefore, they are not entitled to claim any right or interest over the said lane. The case of Mahalakshmiammal is that when she attempted to fix cement pipes on the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document