Case Summary

This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC filed by defendants (Ayyasami & Another, appellants) against the judgment dated 21.08.2018 in A.S.No.15 of 2017 by the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai, which reversed the trial court's dismissal (O.S.No.296/2012, Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai dated 04.10.2016) of plaintiffs' suit for declaration of right to use a suit cart track (Survey Nos. 36,37,38,167,168; 650ft N-S x 15ft E-W) and permanent injunction against fencing by defendants. (!) [21001419860001][21001419860002]

Plaintiffs sued in representative capacity for villagers of Mankulam and individually, claiming the track as public pathway connecting residences/agricultural lands to other villages, used for cattle/tractors/products for statutory period (>200yrs), with eastern boundaries in their deeds showing the track; defendants east of track attempted fencing.[21001419860003][21001419860004]

Defendants denied track through their patta lands (S.Nos.167/168), asserted it lies west per their Ex.A2 sale deed; accused plaintiffs of encroaching west track and claiming into their land; suit not representative.[21001419860005]

Advocate Commissioner report (per IA 308/2012) found track west of plaintiffs' properties/east of defendants'; passes through S.No.38,167,168 (not 36/37); defendants objected re start/end points.[21001419860006]

Trial court dismissed suit: plaint survey nos erroneous (unamended post-report); no proof of public track (no govt docs/settlement records); PW1-3/DW1 evidence weak; no easement pleaded/proved (no continuous use/docs); Exs.B1-B3/A1-A3 no track in 167/168; adverse inference vs plaintiffs' non-production of deeds.[21001419860007][21001419860008][21001419860009]

First Appellate Court allowed appeal/decreed suit: absence of revenue records irrelevant for easement; oral evidence proved immemorial use (>500yrs); locals examined; parties both sides gave up land for track (easement by grant, implied); no alt path needed; defendants can't reclaim/fence.[21001419860010] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [21001419860011]

Substantial questions of law: (i) erroneous plaint description unamended, inexecutable decree; (ii) no proof/existence per records/maps; (iii) reliance on unexamined Commissioner's report despite objections.[21001419860012] (!) (!)

Appellants argued: inconsistent claims (public/common); Commission falsified plaint; no plaintiffs' deeds/boundary recitals; vague easement pleadings (grant/necessity/prescription unproved); west track per Ex.A2/A3; no villagers/deeds for 500yrs claim; Appellate Court erred sans pleadings/docs on grant.[21001419860013][21001419860014][21001419860015][21001419860016]

High Court allowed appeal/set aside Appellate decree/restored trial court: burden on plaintiffs unmet; Commissioner confirmed no track in 36/37, in defendants' 167/168; no govt/private docs (Exs.A1-A5/B1-B3 no track); Ex.A2/A3 show west track; no plaintiffs'/villagers' deeds despite boundary claim; PW2 (VAO)/PW3 admissions negate; no prescription proof (no docs/use evidence, esp 15ft/200yrs); no easement pleadings/proof per type; Appellate erred on unpleaded/implied grant sans docs; questions answered against Appellate.[21001419860017][21001419860018][21001419860019][21001419860020][21001419860021][21001419860022][21001419860023][21001419860024][21001419860025][21001419860026][21001419860027][21001419860028][21001419860029][21001419860030][21001419860031] (!) (!) [21001419860032]