The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the existence and ownership of the pathway, and the validity of the grant of patta in relation to the pathway.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, dated 13.10.2008 made in A.S. Nos.85, 86 and 87 of 2007, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur dated 17.07.2007 made in O.S. Nos.474 of 1992 , 161 of 1994 and 172 of 2003).

1. The Second Appeals in S.A. Nos.1026, 1027 and 1028 of 2009 are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 passed in A.S. Nos.85, 86 and 87 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvallur, partly allowing the appeal modifying the common judgment and decree dated 17.07.2007 passed in O.S.Nos.474/1992, 161/1994 and 172/2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur.

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

3. The O.S. No.474/1992 has been laid for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The O.S. Nos.161/1994 and 172/2003 have been laid for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The abovesaid three suits have been jointly tried by the trial Court and common evidence had been recorded in O.S. No.474/1992 and in support of the plaintiffs' case P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. Exs. C1 to C6 were marked.

5. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiffs only in respect of the 20 feet width pathway shown in red colour in the plaint and accordingly granted the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction with reference to the abovesaid extent of pathway in favour of the plaintiffs and in tune with the abovesaid determination, accordingly, barring the abovesaid extent of 20 feet width pathway as declared in O.S.No.474/1992, granted the reliefs of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.161/1994 and 172/2003. Impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, the first appeal had been preferred by the defendants in O.S. No.474/1992 and the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.161/1994 and 172 of 2003. The first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials available on record and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, was pleased to modify the judgment and decree of the trial court and held that the plaintiffs are entitled only to the reliefs prayed for by them qua 10 feet width pathway shown in the plaint and accordingly also modified the reliefs granted by the trial court in O.S. Nos.161/1994 and 172/2003 and disposed of all the appeals. Impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the present second appeals had been preferred.

6. Considering the pleas put forth by the respective parties and the submissions made by them as well as the available materials on record, it is found that the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs seeking for appropriate reliefs in respect of 25 feet width pathway in survey No.83/4, which according to the plaintiffs was situated within the specific boundaries. The sum and substance of the plaintiffs' case is that other than the said pathway, as above pointed out, the plaintiffs have no other access to reach the main road and the defendants, without any authority or right, are attempting to disturb the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit pathway and also put up the construction in the same with a view to prevent the plaintiffs from using the pathyway to have access to the main road and hence stated that they had been necessitated to institute the suit for appropriate reliefs. The other suits had been laid by the respective plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.161/1994 and 172/2003 against some of the plaintiffs claiming that the properties