The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the plaintiffs' entitlement to the reliefs sought for based on the existence of the 30 feet road and the rights of the plot owners, supported by the legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code.

Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, the defendants 2, 3 and 7 have filed this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is as follows:-

(i) TKS Nagar at Tiruvottiyur consists of about 60 plots and the layout for the site is approved as early as in 1972 bearing TP/D/DTP 16/1972 under letter No.4040/2 S.S.M.2. The plot owners have formed an association, by name TKS Nagar Welfare Association, which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, to look after the affairs and grievances of the plot owners. In the layout, there is a 30 feet road (referred to as G20 in the layout plan), abutting the plots bearing the numbers 1 to 17 on the northern side, running East-West and joint with the 40 feet road abutting the Manali High Road and the plot owners of TKS Nagar have been using this 30 feet road from 1972 onwards, without any obstruction from anybody till recently.

(ii) On the southern side of the 30 feet road abutting the 40 feet road, there was a vacant site of about 99 cents in S.No.564/P. The first defendant and six others trespassed into the said land and divided into 7 plots with numbers A to G. The first defendant occupied his plot and others sold their respective portions to the defendants 2 to 5 and to one Chinnathangam and one Mohamed Riasudien. The defendants 1 to 6 began to construct the 30 feet layout road by fencing the road abutting portion of property in their occupation. The plaintiff and its members protested the unlawful obstruction by the first defendant by sending several complaints to the Collector, Tahsildar and to the other authorities. Since no action was taken to remove the fencing, this suit has been filed.

(iii) The Thiruvottiyur Municipality had already laid 30 feet road from Plot No.17 to Plot No.1 and thereafter due to the obstruction made by the defendants, laying of the road is suspended.

(iv) In the plots A to G abutting the 30 feet road, the defendants 1 to 5 are occupying the plots A to E. The persons who are in occupation of plots F and G have conceded and acknowledged that the property mentioned in the schedule ie., 30 feet road is a layout road and assured that they would not interfere in any manner with the suit property. Hence, they are not added as parties to the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the defendants 1 to 4 have filed their written statement which has been adopted by the other defendants, wherein, it is contended that there is no vacant site in S.No.564/P and they did not trespass in that land. It is further contended that they are not aware of the approval of the layout as alleged in the plaint and that there is no such road having the width of 30 feet on the northern side of the defendants' property. Even in the approval there is no 30 feet road as alleged in the plaint. It is incorrect to state that the 30 feet road is connecting with 40 feet road abutting Manali High Road and the members of the plaintiff using this road from 1971 onwards without any obstruction till recently. The said road is not in existence and the defendants never attempted to annex the said portion because the area on the northern side is within the defendants' respective portion and they have got every right to put up fencing in order to safeguard their property on the northern side to avoid third party encroachment. The municipality never laid the alleged 30 feet road. Nobody knows that there is a road on the northern side of their property. Even the parent documents of these defendants would make it clear that there is no 30 feet road on the northern side of their property.

4. In the additional written statement filed by the first defendant, which has been adopted by other defendants are as follows:-

a. If really the suit road was in existence, the plaintiff would have executed a registered document in favour of