The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for plaintiffs to establish their rights in a disputed property and the need for seeking the relief of declaration of title in property disputes.

1. The Decree and Judgment, dated 13.11.2003, and made in A.S.No.26 of 2003, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-II), Pattukottai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.04.2003, and made in O.S.No.54 of 1998, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, have been challenged in this memorandum of second appeal.

2. For easy reference, the legal character of the parties to the suit need not be changed and they may be referred to as they are in the suit, wherever the context so require.

3. The competency and the locus standi as well of the plaintiffs to institute the suit in their individual capacity instead of representative capacity, as contemplated under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been mainly questioned in this second appeal. It is to be underlined that despite this question had been raised before both the Courts below, none of the Courts below had discussed this issue and it is therefore to be highlighted in this Judgment.

4. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the suit is maintainable in respect of the suit property when it's survey number does not exist in the revenue records?

ii. Whether the respondents can claim the pathway when the first respondent's father had already relinquished all his rights over the entire extent of the land? and

iii. Whether the suit property can be described as communal pathway when it is not used by any other member of the community?

5. The conspectus of the facts:

5.1. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.54 of 1998 as against the defendants seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the suit pathway and for costs.

5.2. The suit property, as it is seen from the schedule of the plaint, is comprised in Old Survey No.501, and new Survey No.501/2, measuring 15 Cents, situated at Punavasal West Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, within the following four boundaries:

i. South to the defendants' plantain, coconuts and Government School,

ii. North to the land belongs to Adaikalasamy Udayar and others,

iii. East to the land belongs to Arokiasamy Udayar, and iv. West to Pattukkottai-Peravoorani Road.

5.3. When the suit village was taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu, as per Act 26 of 1948, the land comprised in Survey No.501 was classified as Government Puramboke, for the purpose of fetching potable water as well as for transport facility and the village people had been using the southern portion of Survey No.501 as a pathway. Further, in order to go towards west from the eastern main road, the village people had been using the above stretch of the land as a communal pathway.

5.4. It is learnt that during the year 1971, the land comprised in Survey Nos.499 and 500 were assigned to the defendants by the Government as per B.S.O.24. Thereafter, by way of UDR Scheme, Survey No.501 was sub-divided into two divisions as Survey Nos.501/1 and 501/2. Accordingly, the subdivided Survey No.501/1 was assigned in the name of the first defendant and the Survey No.501/2 was classified as pathway. This pathway had been used by Punavasal Village people in order to go towards the lands situated on the western side from the eastern main road and subsequently the same was blocked by the defendants, on and from 01.03.1998, with the connivance of the Government officials, for which they do not have any right. Under this circumstance, the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the pathway.

5.5. The second defendant had contended in his written statement that the plaintiffs do not have any right either to institute the suit or to claim the relief of mandatory injunction as they are not having any semblance of right over the suit property. When the suit village was taken over by the Government, as per the Act 26 of 1948, the land comprised in Survey No.501 was not subjected to sub-division. But, the suit propert