The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the right of common usage over the suit lane based on the partition deed of 1969, and the rejection of the defendants' plea of prescription and adverse possession.

The second appeal is focussed by the defendants as against the judgement and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.31 of 2005 confirming the judgement and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.216 of 2003, which was filed for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions.

The Cross-appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.31 of 2005 in so far as partly reversing the judgement and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, in the said O.S.No.216 of 2003..

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent in the second appeal-Kesavan filed the suit as against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:

"a) declaring that the plaintiff is the co-owner of the suit A schedule property along with the defendants;

b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering the plaintiff peaceful enjoyment of the suit A schedule property in any manner either by storing any material in the suit A schedule property or causing any obstruction like parking their vehicle blocking the usage of the same;

c) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the electric meters etc., fitted in the suit 'AB' wall morefully described in the 'B' schedule within a time fixed by this Honourable Court and in case of non compliance by them directing the same to be done by an officer of this Honourable Court at the cost of the defendants;

d) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants and their successors in interest to remove the wall with door way etc., morefully described in schedule C of the plaint within a time to be fixed by this Honourable Court and to case of non-compliance by them directing the same to be done by an officer of this Honourable Court at the cost of the defendants;

e) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff; and

f) granting such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deed fit and proper and circumstances of the case."

(extracted as such)

(ii) The fourth defendant-Jayaramakrishnan filed the written statement resisting the suit, which was adopted by defendants 1 to 3.

(iii) Whereupon issues were framed.

(iv) Up went the trial, wherein the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with his father Dharmalingam as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on his side. The fourth defendant-Jeyaramakrishnan examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked on the defendants' side. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents.

(v) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed; whereupon the first appellate Court partly modified the judgement and decree of the trial Court and granted the relief excluding the Northern portion of the suit common path way.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below, the defendants preferred the second appeal; however the plaintiff filed the cross appeal relating to the rejection of the part of his claim by the first appellate Court.

5. The gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:

(i) There emerged a registered partition deed Ex.A1 dated 25.6.69 among the father of the plaintiff, namely, Dharmalingam, and Dharmalingam's brothers JayaramakrishnanD4 herein and one Gopalakrishnan, as per which, Dharmalingam was entitled to use along with his brothers, the 'A' scheduled property, which is a common path way

(ii) The defendants are having their electricity meters fixed on the wall of the plai