The plaintiff's failure to establish prescriptive rights and non-joinder of necessary parties led to the dismissal of the suit.

The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24. 1996, passed in A.S.No.52 of 1995, on the file of the Subordinate Court, at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.1994, passed in O.S.No.515 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District.

2. The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.515 of 1991, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit before the District Munsif Court at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District, praying for the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the building named as Reliance Building, measuring 0.18-6/16 acres in R.S.No.1752. The plaintiff had demolished some of the buildings which had been there and had constructed the said building in the property. The eastern boundary of the said property is the lands in R.S.Nos.1750/1 and 1750/2. The Government had assigned the lands in 1750/2 to the Co-operative Printing Works. On the eastern portion of R.S.No.1750/1, the defendants are running a Petrol Bunk. In R.S.No.1752, there was a passage about 20 feet in width which gives access to the plaintiffs house and land. The said passage has been marked as "ABCD" in the sketch annexed to the plaint filed in O.S.No.515 of 1991. The plaintiff has been using the said passage for about 65 years. The plaintiff has prescriptive rights over the passage. Since the persons having the Co-operative Press had attempted to block the said passage, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 1986, which had been dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 1989, which is pending before the District Court, Ootacamund. Even though the defendants have no right in the suit property, on 16. 1991, they have constructed a foundation in the suit property. Since the plaintiff had gone to Australia, he came to know about the facts only after his return. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.515 of 1991.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant, which had been adopted by the first defendant, are as follows:

It has been stated that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The plaintiffs title in the suit property is denied. Since the plaintiff has not made his brothers as parties to the suit, it is defective. The suit filed by the plaintiff against the second defendant had been dismissed. Since the Government had leased the said land to Bharath Petroleum Corporation, the said concern is a necessary party to the suit. The claim of the plaintiff that he has prescriptive rights in the passage is imaginary. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right in the passage belonging to the Government. The suit does not have any cause of action. The amount paid as Court Fee for the filing of the suit is incorrect. Therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.

5. Based on the averments made in the plaint as well as in the written statement, the trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:-

"1. Whether the averment of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his tenants have prescriptive rights over the suit pathway is correct?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?"

6. The additional issue was framed by the trial Court, on 211. 1994, which is as

follows:

"Whether the suit is barred by the non-joinder of necessary parties?"

7. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 30.11.1994, had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the suit. Even though the plaintiff had claimed that he has prescriptive rights over the suit passa