The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a layout is approved earmarking areas for roads and common areas, they cannot be altered, and the authorities' approval of a revised plan can make a suit not maintainable.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he has got a right of pathway over the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the approach road having 40 feet width and 100 feet length so as to have access to the appellant's property.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the plaintiff/ appellant is the owner of 4.50 acres in Survey No.174 and P.P. Murugaian and his sons namely the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of 8.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos.175, 176 and 204/A2 adjoining the property belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. As per the master plan, Survey Nos.174, 175 and 175 were notified as industrial area and the defendants 1 and 2 and their father Murugaian converted the total extent of 8.60 acres in Survey Nos.175, 176 and 204/A2 as residential areas and applied for layout in the year 1992 and the layout was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning in Proceedings No.306/92 and the same was also approved by the ninth respondent on 08.04.1992. They named the property as J.J. Nagar and authorised the eighth respondent to sell the property by appointing him as Power Agent and several plots were sold in J.J. Nagar and houses were constructed.

3. It was further stated that in the layout approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning in the year 1992, the respondents 1 to 7 formed a road having width of 40 feet and length of 100 feet and that road ends with the property belonging to the appellant and the appellant was using that road as an approach road to reach Sathy-Erode Main road and that road was also used as a connecting road to reach the various plots in the layout approved by the authorities. While so, the respondents 1 to 7 applied for revised layout plan and as per revised layout plan, they converted the 40 feet road which connects plaintiff's property into plots and by reason of the conversion of the road into plots where Kalyana Mandapam was also built, the plaintiff's access to the main road was blocked and therefore the suit was filed for declaration and for mandatory injunction.

4. The first respondent contested the suit stating that the plaintiff has no right to question the alteration of the layout and the Power Agent namely the eighth respondent herein applied for revised layout, without the consent of the owner of the property and he purchased the property which was converted into Thirumana Mandapam and on coming to know of the same, they also cancelled the power given to the ninth defendant namely eighth respondent herein. They further alleged that the plaintiff has no right to question the approval of the layout by the authorities and he is not entitled to seek the relief without challenging the approval of road by the competent authorities. The ninth defendant/eighth respondent, the power agent of the defendants 1 to 7 filed a separate statement stating the suit is barred by limitation and the revised plan was approved in the year 1995 and the plaintiff has no locus standi to question the revised layout and the plaintiff never had any access through J.J. Nagar layout formed in Survey Nos.175, 176 and the plaintiff's are having clear access to the main road and therefore the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation, as the plaintiff/appellant has not taken any steps from 1999 till 2006 to file a suit and the plaintiff has also did not come to Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has no right over the 40 feet width road in the original layout approved by the authority. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and further held that the plaintiff/appellant has got access to the main road through East West Pillaiyar Road and he has not filed the suit within three years from the date of reply given by the Director of Town and Country Planning and the appellant