The unsuccessful defendants, who are representing themselves and representing the Villagers of Kariaperumalpudur, Sivanaikenpatty Village, Namakkal Taluk in both the Courts below are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to remove RSTU construction portion stated to have been constructed on the Panchayat road and for a declaration that neither the defendants nor the Villagers have any right to obstruct access to the road from any point at the CD level of the plaintiffs property and also for an injunction from putting up any obstruction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that on the Eastern side of his property comprised in Survey No.291/2AA there is a Municipal road running North to South and just in front of his access to the road from his property. The defendants have put up the construction, wherein they are keeping certain articles and materials belong to the temple of the Village. Since it obstructs his right of free iggress and egress to his property and on the basis that the said construction has been put up on the Municipal road, which is used as a road by public, the suit was filed. The defense by the defendants was that it was not a Panchayat road but it was a Natham Puramboku and the Villagers are using it for the purpose of keeping the materials belong to the temple of the Village.

3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has submitted his report and he found that the construction, which is in question was stated to have been effected in 1993 to which the defendants have not filed any objection. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on appreciation of the factual position, have found that the suit property was not a Natham Purampoke, as claimed by the defendants and it is a construction put up on the Panchayat road and on that basis granted decree of mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized construction.

.4. While considering the averment made on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff being one of the Villagers has also paid subscription of Rs.100/-for maintenance of the Village and it is based on the said subscriptions, the amounts are spent for Temple purpose including to putting up construction and therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from raising such an issue about unauthorized construction, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has come to a conclusion that even though the defendants have stated that the plaintiff paid subscription of Rs.100/-, no record has been produced before the Court to show to that effect and on that basis the principle of estoppel was turned down. In any event, it remains the fact that even assuming that the plaintiff has paid such subscription for the purpose of Village, it does not mean that the plaintiff loses his right of preventing even public from putting any obstruction on the road, especially the same is in front of his house. Therefore, I do not think that the principle of estoppel will apply on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgement rendered by this Court in Muthammal (died) and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2006(3) MLJ 216 to the effect that if the disputed property is a grama natham, there was no question of issuance of any patty or entry made in Adangal etc. and the first occupier is entitled as a owner of the portion and in such circumstances, the decision arrived at by the Courts below, that no evidence has been produced by the defendants to show that the place is a grama natham, cannot be sustained, is not acceptable.

6. As rightly pointed out by the Courts below, the P.W.2, who is the adjacent owner has in fact been examined, who has produced the chitta and adangal in respect of carttrack, which according to him means the Panchayat road on which the disputed construction has been put up and it was not even the case of the defendants, while cross examining the sa