The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prior usage rights and the interpretation of sale deeds in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2004 in A.S.No. 5 of 2003 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.1998 in O.S.No. 573 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari

This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2004 in A.S.No. 38 of 2000 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.1998 in O.S.No. 568 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari)

1. The plaintiff, M.K.Shanmugam in O.S.No. 568 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Sankari is the appellant in S.A.No. 1799 of 2004.

2. The said suit in O.S.No. 568 of 1988 had been filed by the plaintiff M.K.Shanmugam against the defendant K.A.Muthusamy seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including letting out sewerage water in the suit property and for costs.

3. The suit property was described as a lane measured 1 ½ feet width and about 60 feet length to the North of the properties of the plaintiff and to the South of the properties of the first defendant.

4. The son M.K.Shanmugam was the defendant in O.S.No. 573 of 1988 again on the file of the District Munsif Court at Sankari and he is the appellant in S.A.No. 1798 of 2004.

5. The said suit in O.S.No. 573 of 1988 had been filed by the plaintiffs K.A.Muthusamy, K.A.Perumal and K.A.Kandasamy against the defendant M.K.Shanmugam seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession.

6. The suit property was against the same lane, but described as measuring 3 feet width and 60 feet length with 1 feet depth ditch in the middle and to the south of the properties of the plaintiffs and north of the properties of the defendant.

7. By common Judgment in both the suits dated 20.11.1998, the District Munsif, Sankari, decreed O.S.No. 573 of 1988 and dismissed O.S.No. 568 of 1988.

8. Questioning the dismissal of O.S.No. 568 of 1988, the plaintiff M.K.Shanmugam filed A.S.No. 38 of 2000 and aggrieved by the decree granted in O.S.No. 573 of 1988, he filed A.S.No. 5 of 2003. Both the Appeal suits were filed in the Sub Court, Sankari. Both the Appeal suits were dismissed by common Judgment dated 25.02.2004.

9. Challenging the dismissal of the two appeal suits, the present second appeals have been filed. S.A.No. 1798 of 2004 had been filed against the Judgment in A.S.No. 5 of 2003 and S.A.No. 1799 of 2004 had been filed against the Judgment in A.S.No. 38 of 2000.

10. Both the Second Appeals had been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:-

“1. When Ex.A-2, the sale deed clearly shows that the property covered by Ex.A-2 is subject to a lease in favour of one Mr.Venkataramana Naidu and that the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 573 of 1988 have to take possession after the expiry of lease and when P.W.1 clearly admits that he has not taken any possession from Venkataramana Naidu, are the Courts below correct in law in granting a decree for declaration and consequential injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of any title or possession in respect of the property covered under Ex.A-2.?;

2. Are not the judgment and decree of the Courts below liable to be set aside for non consideration of Exs.B-1 to B-5 in their correct perspective?.”

11. Pending the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representative was brought on record as the second appellant. The first respondent K.A. Muthusamy also died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as 2nd to 8th respondents.

12. The appellant herein had filed O.S.No. 568 of 1988 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the lane which was further north after his compound wall and which