The judgment establishes the principle that lease arrangements must be supported by clear evidence, and unsupported claims of oral arrangements after the expiry of written leases cannot be upheld.

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.310 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.)

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.310 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the appellants do not have a right to the passage under Ex.B1, lease deed totally overlooking the fact that Ex.B1 Lease Deed has come to an end and the same has been novated by an oral lease which has been in vogue and given effect to since 1969?

2. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in non-suiting the appellants totally overlooking the fact that the respondent who has remained silent from 1969 and who had not protested the use of the passage by the appellants have acquiesced to the enjoyment of the passage by the appellants and is therefore estopped from obstructing the same?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction.

6. It is not in dispute that the suit shop belongs to the Mutt and the same had been let on lease in favour of the plaintiff. Now, according to the plaintiff, the lease is oral. Further, according to the plaintiff, as per the plan attached to the plaint, the suit shop leased out to him is facing the main road on the western side and further, according to him, on the southern side of the suit shop, there is a lane portion and it is also stated by the plaintiff that there is a doorway, shown as “S” in the plaint plan, on the southern side of the suit shop and according to the plaintiff, as per the lease arrangement entered into with the defendant, he had been granted the right/permission to use the lane portion lying on the southern side of the suit shop in taking the lorries and down loading the goods and further, taking the goods through “S” doorway shown in the plaint plan and he had been exercising the said right from the date of the lease and according to the plaintiff, the defendant, of late, endeavoured to close the doorway shown as “S” in the plaint plan and also put up a construction in the lane portion on the southern side of the suit shop, thereby, attempted to hinder the plaintiff in using the lane portion and thereby, take the goods into the suit shop and godown through the “S” doorway and hence, praying for appropriate relief against the defendant, with reference to the same, he has laid the suit against the defendant.

7. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that no doubt, the suit shop had been leased out in favour of the plaintiff, however, it is put forth that the lease is not oral but by way of a registered lease deed executed in the year 1963 and further, contended that the lease deed does not cover any right conferred on the plaintiff in using the “S” doorway in the southern side of the suit shop and it is stated that the plaintiff has not been granted the lease in respect of the usage of “S” doorway and further, according to the defendant, there is no lane on the southern side of the suit shop and on the other hand, the land situated on the s