The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of ownership and right of access to a property in a property dispute case.

1. Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 made in A.S.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 made in O.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2. The plaintiff who is unsuccessful in both the Courts below have filed the present Second Appeal. The appellant filed O.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur against one K.S. Ranganathan for declaration to declare that B Schedule property is the only passage of the appellant for ingress and egress to the suit A Schedule; injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing or making construction in any portion of the B Schedule and thereby interfering with appellant's exclusive enjoyment of access to the A Schedule property. Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A.No.41 of 2008 to include the prayer of mandatory injunction. As per the order passed on 22.01.2008 in I.A.No.41 of 2008, amendment was carried out to include the prayer for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove construction and all kinds of encroachment made by him over the B Schedule property and on his failure to remove the encroachment on the suit B Schedule property, the same may be removed through process by this Court.

3. According to the appellant, she is absolute owner of A Schedule property. Originally, A Schedule property was owned by V.G.P. Housing (P) Ltd. One Govindasamy purchased A Schedule property from V.G.P Housing (P) Ltd. The said Govindasamy in turn sold A Schedule property to Kalaivani and Geetharani. The appellant purchased the A Schedule property from Kalaivani and Geetharani by deed of sale dated 13.05.1994, bearing document No.1612 of 1994. In the sale deed of the appellant and the sale deeds of her vendors and vendors' vendor, Southern boundary of the A Schedule property is shown as Velachery main road. The appellant, after purchase, constructed a small shop. The appellant is running a Hardware business under the name and style of “Amuda Hardware” on the Eastern side of the A Schedule property facing Velachery main road. The appellant also erected a small shed facing Velachery main road in which appellant's employee is staying.

3(a).B Schedule is the only access to reach A Schedule property from Velachery main road. The appellant is using B Schedule property for ingress and egress to reach the Velachery main road. The said road is in existence for many years. The appellant is regularly paying property tax to the concerned Revenue authority for the A Schedule property and obtained electricity service connection for the shop in the A Schedule property. The appellant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A and B Schedule properties.

3(b). During the year 2000, one Kamaladevi tried to put up illegal construction in front of A Schedule property i.e., in the B Schedule property. The appellant filed O.S.No.402 of 2000 for mandatory and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 31.12.2002. During pendency of the suit, Highways Department removed illegal construction put up by Kamaladevi. Due to typographical error in the Schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.402 of 2000, the Survey Number was mentioned as S.No.300, instead of S.No.399 part. The appellant filed I.A.No.245 of 2004 for amendment.

3(c).While so, the defendant tried to trespass into the B Schedule property and put up construction, obstructing the frontage of A Schedule property. The same was prevented by the appellant. The appellant only has right for B Schedule property. The defendant has no right over the suit property. The defendant is working as Class IV in Food Corporation of India, Chennai. He is powerful by money and muscle. With a view to extract money, he made such illegal attempt and threatened the appellant. Hence, the appellant has come out with the suit for the relief stated above.

4. The defendant filed written statement an