The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of certified truncated copies of sale deeds and the identification of the disputed property. The court clarified that the relief was based on the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer and the sale deed.

1. The first defendant in the original suit O.S.No.7510 of 1997 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant in the second appeal. The above said suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the appellant and the second respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein first defendant from in any manner interfering with the first respondent’s right of passage through the driveway having a width of 40 feet. The second respondent, who figured as second defendant, is only an official and he does not have any personal interest in the outcome of the case. The appellant herein/first defendant alone contested the suit.

2. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the decree passed by the trial Judge, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2006 and the said appeal came to be disposed of by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2006, whereby the learned appellate Judge chose to dismiss the appeal with costs confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by and challenging the said decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellant herein/first defendant has chosen to prefer the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the grounds of second appeal.

3. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the grounds of second appeal, the scope of second appeal is limited by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Section 100 CPC, an appeal from the appellate decree of a Court subordinate to the High Court will lie to the High Court only on a substantial question/substantial questions of law. At the time of admission, two questions were formulated as substantial questions of law. They are:

“1. Whether the appellate Court has erred in law in deciding the very admissibility of Exhibits A2, A3, A4, A9 and A10 when they are certified truncated copies and not complete ones by simply perusing their respective originals when the same were produced by the plaintiff’s counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal and overruled the objections raised by the appellant’s counsel by simply saying that “much technicalities are not to be pressed upon the same”?

Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in law when it confirmed the decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit as prayed for on the basis of Exhibit A7 rough sketch (plaint document No.7 wrongly referred to Plaint Document No.6 in the plaint relief column 13a) after accepting the submissions of the counsel for the appellant for the rejection of Exhibit A7 as inadmissible in evidence by applying the preposition of law laid down by the Honourable Court in the judgment reported in 2000 (1) Law Weekly, Page 476, nevertheless stated in Clause 2 of the decree, that Exihibit A10 sketch shall be referred instead of Document No.6 without there being any amendment sought for by the plaintiff to that effect?

4. The arguments advanced by S. Subbaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, by.M. Balasubramnian, learned counsel for the first respondent and by Devendran, learned counsel for the second respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.

5. The first respondent in the original suit who suffered a decree for permanent injunction in the court of the first instance, which came to be confirmed by the first appellate Court, is the appellant in the second appeal. The second respondent, namely Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, was vested with the power to manage the functions of the Nurses Club (Regd.), Madras amalgamated with Nurses Association (Regd.) Madras, purchased a larger extent of property comprised in S.No.650 and bearing Old Door No.6/New Door No.59, Eldams Road, Vepery, Madras – 7 consisting of building and vacant site under a sale deed dated 25.07.1934 bearing Document No.2044 of 1934 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, West Madras, after obtaining permissio