JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.129 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur dated 24.09.2020 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamuthi, dated 31.10.2017.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.38 of 2015 before the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District for declaration of title and consequential injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.129 of 2017 before the Subordinate Court, Muthukulathur. The appeal was also dismissed. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property is located in Survey No.432/18. Immediately, on the north of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff's house property is located in Survey No.432/19. According to the plaintiff, in the south of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has left out 1½ feet and the defendants on their northern side has left out 1 ½ feet so as to create a 3 feet common pathway. The said pathway is also reflected in Exhibit A1 partition deed entered into between the first defendant's grandfather and his brother. According to the plaintiff, the boundary recital in the said document would reflect that the northern boundary is the plaintiff's property.

4. The plaintiff further contended that the Government of Tamil Nadu recently conducted a natham survey in which the southern portion of the property belonging to the plaintiff has been carved out and a new Survey No.432/18 has been created. The suit Survey No.432/18 has been classified as a road. The said classification will not affect or take away the property rights of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff further contended that in the year 2014, the defendants opened a doorway facing northwards into the suit schedule property. Only thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the plaintiff has been issued with a reduced extent of patta during resurvey proceedings. Since the suit schedule property is an occupied natham, the Government ought to have granted patta for the entire property in occupation of the plaintiff including Survey No.432/18. The plaintiff further contended that none of the public are using the suit property as a pathway. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

6. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement disputing the averments in the plaint. According to the defendant, their house property is more than 100 years old with madras terrace building. The main door was facing northwards road from the date of construction. Hence, the allegation that suddenly main door was created in the year 2014 is not factually correct. The defendants further contended that the alleged suit schedule property belongs to the defendants. Since general public are using it as a road, the defendants have not raised any objection for re-classfication of Survey No.432/18 as a road. The defendants further contended that they have drawn electricity line only through the suit schedule property. The defendants further contended that the main door of the plaintiff is facing northwards projecting into another road and they have never used the suit schedule property.

7. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has not established his title over the suit schedule properties. Though the plaintiff relied upon Exhibit A1 partition deed which took place among the defendants' family, there is no clarity whether the property of the plaintiff was constructed up to the southern boundary or some vacant space was left by the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that the suit Survey No.432/18 has been classified as a road and it connects another road on