JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, dated 12.11.2013 in A.S.No.7 of 2013, modifying the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 06.12.2012 in O.S.No.153 of 2011.)

1. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.153 of 2011, who suffered a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has got a natural right to reach the road on the east of A schedule property from every point it abuts the road and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove the encroachment made by the 1st defendant in the 'B' Schedule property on its conformation by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.7 of 2013, has come up with the second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he owns property bearing D.No.15D/4, Thirmanjana Veedhi, Koranad, Mayiladudurai. The suit property is bounded by Thirumanjana veedhi on the east and cauvery line karai on the north. According to the plaintiff, the main entrance of the property is facing east opening on Thirumanjana Veedhi. The plaintiff would contend that the 1st defendant had encroached upon the Thirumanjana Veedhi and put up a hut obstructing the access of the plaintiff to Thirumanjana Veedhi. Claiming that the plaintiff has right of access to the public road from every point his property abuts the same, the plaintiff sought for the aforesaid relief.

3. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the property on which he had put up a hut is a Government poramboke land and it is not a road poramboke. Being Government poramboke land, the plaintiff has no right over the same and he cannot claim a easementry right as if his property abuts the public Road.

4. The Mayiladudurai Municipality which was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit filed a written statement, admitting that the 1st defendant had encroached upon the road margin and expressing their inability to take action since the 1st defendant seeks alternative land.

5. The Courts below upon consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the portion encroached by the 1st defendant forms a part of Thirumanjana Veedhi and the plaintiff as the owner of the land abutting a public street has got a right of access from every point of his land which abuts a public street. The claim of the 1st defendant that the land in her occupation is not a road margin was rejected by the Courts below.

6. Aggrieved, the 1st defendant is on appeal.

7. The 2nd respondent Municipality though served has not entered appearance either in person or through counsel.

8. I have heard Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

9. The following question of law was framed at the time of admission:

Whether both the Courts below is correct in granting mandatory injunction and permanent injunction is legally correct or perverse finding while the owner of the property is Government or Municipality? (sic)

10. Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would draw my attention to the evidence of P.W 1, wherein P.W.1 had admitted that the property over which the 1st defendant has put up construction has been classified as Government poramboke. Therefore, according to him, the Courts below were not right in applying the law relating to the right of owner of the property abutting a public road to have access to reach it from every point his property abuts the road. According to Mr.S.Soundhar, the right to have access to the public road will be applicable only if the property is shown to be abutting the public road.

11. Contending that in view of the admission of P.W.1, it is clear that there is Government poramboke land in between the plaintiff's land on the west and Thirumanajana Veedhi situate on the East. Therefore, according to Mr.S.Sounthar, the Courts below were not right in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff as h