1. Heard Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.G.K.R.Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.28 of 2008 dated 27.01.2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.583 of 2005 dated 11.10.2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.

3. The appellant herein is the first defendant, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 and 4 herein are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.583 of 2005 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil seeking for a prayer of permanent injunction and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2008 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil. The learned Principal Sub Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellants filed this present second appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is the pathway that belonged to the Temple and the pathway was maintained by the Temple during the festival time. The Temple chariot will pass through this pathway. One Rohini Vijayakumar filed a petition before the Electricity Board, Nagercoil for getting the electricity connection through the pathway. A suit in O.S.No.102 of 1997 was filed by Rohini and an injunction not to take electricity connection through the pathway was granted. The appeal filed by Rohini Vijayakumar in A.S.No.225 of 2004 was also dismissed. The first defendant purchased the suit property and he was not a member of the Village. He filed a petition for electricity connection and the defendants 2 and 3 tried to help him, though there is a permanent injunction against them. The defendants colluding with the first defendant filed a suit before District Consumer Forum without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a petition to implead them and the petition was dismissed and an appeal is pending against the petition. The suit property is the patta property of the plaintiffs and prayed that an order of permanent injunction is to be granted.

5. The case of the first defendant is that the suit property is a public pathway and the public are using the pathway and there is no other pathway for the first defendant to reach the main road. The first defendant purchased the property with an extent of 6 cents of land with the right over the pathway in the year 1996 and he was using the pathway from the year 1996 onwards and he constructed a house in the year 1998 and the house is facing this pathway. The first defendant applied for the electricity connection and the same was accepted by the defendants 2 and 3. The Temple is a common temple and the people in and around the temple are relatives. Due to previous enmity, the second plaintiff is objecting electricity connection through this pathway. The pathway was formed by all the people residing in that area. The first defendant is not a party in O.S.NO.102 of 1997 and prayed the suit to be dismissed.

6. The case of the defendants 2 and 3 is that there is a pathway from Holy Cross Road to Arulmighu Mutharamman Temple, Koothangadu, Moovendar Nagar, Nagercoil and there is a gate. The defendants and others are using the pathway and the pathway is not the individual property of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is not a party to the earlier suit in O.S.No.102 of 1997. The judgment passed in O.S.No.102 of 1997 will not affect the first defendant. Rohini was having alternative pathway at that time whereas there is no other pathway for the first defendant. The first defendant applied for electric connection as per applicati