The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering admissions and following proper procedure in admitting additional pleadings and shifting the burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment dated 06.08.2008 passed in A.S.No. 33 of 2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge at madurantakkam, Kanchipuram District by reversing the Decree and Judgment dated 13.04.2005 passed in O.S.No. 278 of 2001 by the District Munsif Maduranthakkam, Kanchipuram District.)

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 278 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Maduranthakkam are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No. 278 of 2001 had been filed originally by the plaintiff Kalyana Sundaram. He died pending the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as 2nd to 5th plaintiffs. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit property, namely, private land and for costs of the suit.

3. The suit schedule property was described as property in Gandhi Nagar, Madurantakkam, Kancheepuram District in S.No. 836, measuring North to South 50 feet and East to West 4 feet. By Judgment dated 13.04.2005, the District Munsif Court, Madurantakkam, had decreed the suit with costs and granted permanent injunction.

4. The defendants then filed A.S.No. 33 of 005 before Sub Court, Madurantakkam. Along with the said Appeal suit, the learned First Appellate Judge also took into consideration I.A.No. 92 of 2006 which had been filed seeking permission to file an additional written statement. By Judgment dated 06.08.2008, the Interlocutory Application was allowed and the additional written statement was taken on file and simultaneously, on considering the averments made in the additional written statement, the Appeal Suit was allowed and the Judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the grant of permanent injunction was also set aside. This has necessitated the legal representatives of the plaintiffs to file the present Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“a) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by not noticing that the express admissions made by the defendants themselves that the suit pathway form part of the plaintiff patta property need not to be proved by the plaintiffs as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act?

b) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected themselves in receiving the additional written statement filed by the defendants during the appellate stage?

c) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by reversing the trial Court's decree and Judgment based on the additional written statement filed by the respondent during the appellate stage?

d) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected themselves in shifting the burden on the plaintiff to prove Ex.B-11, produced by the defendant to show the suit pathway is a public road, while the survey number of the suit pathway and the survey number of the public road shown in Ex.B11 were totally different?”

O.S.No. 278 of 2001 (District Munsif Court, Madurantakam):

6. The suit in O.S.No. 278 of 2001 had been filed claiming that the original plaintiff and his brothers owned the suit property and adjacent house sites as ancestral properties and were residing there. They then entered into an oral partition which had been confirmed by a subsequent written document. The suit property which is a lane measuring east to west 4 feet and north to south 50 feet was retained for common use of all the co-owners alone. It was a private lane. It was claimed that the general public have no right to use the land.

7. It was further stated that the defendants were residing to the south of the suit property and they have got an access to the main road by a public street further south. It had been further stated that the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property lane. Claiming protection of possession and private usage, the suit had been filed for permane