Implied dedication of road to the public.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.357 of 1981 have filed these Second Appeals having aggrieved by the common judgments and decrees of the courts below.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.357 of 1981, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem seeking for a declaration declaring that the “CD” Road as shown in the plaint plan in Mohanaad Peak Estate is a private road belonging to the plaintiffs and for injunction restraining the defendants from taking proceedings under Sec.133 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also exercising jurisdiction over the “CD” Road.

3. According to the plaintiffs, as per the final decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, the Mohanaad Peak Estate belongs to the plaintiffs exclusively. The same was divided into four equal parts and there are number of private roads running on the said estate. A total extent of 6 acres 52 cents is the area covered by the said private roads. The Government loop road goes from Semmanatham village to cauvery peak and Northenchedu village. There is a private road belonging to the plaintiffs exclusively branching from loop road which has been shown as “CD” in the rough plan runs about 11/2 time in length and about 1.50 acres in extent. It is not maintained by the panchayat union and the panchayat union road is maintained only from 6th K.M. to llth K.M. Since the 2nd defendant directed the plaintiffs 3 and 4 to remove the “CD” road exercising powers under Sec.133 of the Criminal Procedure Code as if it is a public road. Since proceedings have been taken under the Criminal Procedure Code, the plaintiffs have come forward with the above suit. Originally the 4th defendant, one M.S.P.Rajah was not impleaded as a party, but he filed a petition in I.A.No.519 of 1981 seeking to implead him as a party-defendant. The said petition was allowed on 20.7.81. The said Rajah also filed a suit in O.S.No.2700 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem which has been transferred to the Sub-Court, Salem and tried along with O.S.No.357 of 1981. The said suit was filed seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his right to use the road in question.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.357 of 1981 contested the suit contending inter alia that it is a public road as it has been dedicated for the use

5. The 4th defendant filed a written statement stating that his right to use the Bommidikadu and the Golden Valley Estate from Yercaud loop road through the suit road going through Mohanaad Peak Estate is an easement of necessity.

6. The trial court accepting the case of the defendants in O.S.No.357 of 1981 dismissed the suit and decreed the suit in O.S.No.263 of 1982. The appellants filed appeal in A.S.Nos.251 and 255 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, Salem. The lower appellate court found that the suit road is a public road and it has been dedicated by the owners for the use of the public. While considering the defence taken by the 4th defendant in the said suit regarding the easement of necessity, the lower appellate court found that the suit road is only the road through which the 4th defendant can take cars and lorries to reach his estate to transport much quantity of fruits and timber to Yercaud and Salem. On the basis of the abovesaid findings, the appellate Court dismissed the appeals. Hence these Second Appeals.

7. The substantial question of law that arise for consideration in these Second Appeals is:-

S.A.No.2156 of 1986:-

“Based on resolution Ex.P3. could it be held that there had been a dedication of immovable property in the absence of a formal document executed between the State and the owners of the property?”

S.A.No.2157 of 1986:-

“Once the court had held in O.S.No.357 of 1981 that the disputed property had been dedicated to the State to be used by the general public, were not the courts below in error in granting the relief to the plaintiff in O.S.No.263 of 1982