The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the rights of access to the road, and the applicability of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2007 made in A.S.No.119 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.12.1999 made in O.S.No.830 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2007 passed in A.S.No.119 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.830 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court. The first defendant in O.S.No.830 of 1986 is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs had purchased the property in S.No.377/9 of Pallipalayam village under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.1966 from one Chinna gounder, s/o, Velappa gounder and others and enjoying the same and on 13.09.1966, the plaintiffs have sold said some of their property to one Marappa gounder with specific boundaries under the registered sale deed and Marappa gounder sold the said property to the second defendant and the first defendant is the son of the second defendant and the third defendant is the tenant under the second defendant. S.No.377/1 is a parai promboke belonging to the Government. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the said land from 1966 onwards from the date of purchase of the land in S.No.377/9, using the promboke land as their manure pit and put up a cattle shed and growing trees and also paying B Memo charges to the Government for enjoying the promboke land. Except the plaintiffs, no one is in the possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S.No.377/1 and the said land in the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 are the adjacent land owners and owing to certain dispute between the plaintiffs' family and the defendants, the defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit property unlawfully by taking the law into their own hands and hence according the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate relief.

5. The first defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that it is false to state that the plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as alleged in the plaint by paying B Memo charges to the Government and the rough plan submitted by the plaintiffs is incorrect and putforth the case that the second defendant has got his land adjacent to the promboke land, however the allegation of trespass said to have been made by the defendants into the promboke land is false. The plaintiffs had sold their property to one Marappa gounder with specific boundaries by way of a sale deed dated 14.09.1966 and subsequently, Marappa gounder sold the same to the second defendant by way of the sale deed dated 13.07.1972 and since then, it is only the second defendant and the first defendant who are in the possession and enjoyment of the property. The property purchased under the abovesaid sale deed is a vacant site sold by the plaintiffs adjoining the promboke land in S.No.377/1 on the east and as the defendants had refused to sell the house to the plaintiffs, enraged over the same, the plaintiffs are preventing the defendants from going to their house from the road on the west through the promboke land. The defendants all along have been using the promboke land in S.No377/1 to reach the road on the west of the house and the owner of the houses or premises abutting the road way are entitled to have access to that road from all the points on the boundary of their land and none has the right to cause any obstruction over the road margin securing such access and contended that the plaintiffs have never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property comprised in S.No.377/