Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Gomuluammal (died) & Another - Appellant
Versus
G. Balasubramanian - Respondent
S.A.(MD). No. 438 of 2019
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Common Lane - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - Section 8 - Exhibit A2, Exhibit A3, Exhibit A4 - The court discussed the ownership and usage of a common lane located on the northern side of the plaintiff's and defendant's properties. It interpreted Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act to establish that the common lane is an appurtenant to the property purchased by the plaintiff under Exhibit A2, even though there was no specific reference to the lane in Exhibit A2. The court concluded that both parties have a right to access and use the common lane.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of a common lane. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The defendant filed a second appeal challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the common lane is a shared pathway for both the plaintiff and the defendant, based on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act. It held that the plaintiff is entitled to use the common lane, and directed all co-owners to maintain it only as a common passage without using it for any other purpose.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff to relief on the basis of the sale deed, the mode of enjoyment mentioned in the plaint, consideration of subsequent documents, and the maintainability of the suit for injunction without declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, which established that the common lane is an appurtenant to the property purchased by the plaintiff under Exhibit A2, despite the absence of a specific reference to the lane in Exhibit A2.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the court directed all co-owners of the common lane to maintain it only as a common passage without using it for any other purpose.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree order dated 25.02.2019 in A.S.No.106 of 2017 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017 in O.S.No.2384 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli by allowing the second appeal.)
1. The defendant is the appellant.
2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.2384 of 2004 before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which is a common lane. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant filed A.S.No. 106 of 2017 before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent finding, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has contended that Door Nos.4, 4A and 4A-1 in North Andar Street, Trichy were originally owned by one M.N.Srinivasan, Trichy. The said M.N.Srinivasan has sold Door No.4 and 4A to the plaintiff's father. He had sold Door No.4A-1 to one Baby Ammal which was later purchased by the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. On the east of the above said property, there is a north-south lane. The said lane proceeds from North Andar Street towards north and at the place where the property belonging to the first defendant is situated it turns towards west. Thus, according to the plaintiff, east-west pathway is located on the northern side of both the plaintiff and the first defendant's property. The plaintiff's property is located on the western side of the defendant's property. The plaintiff has marked the suit lane as A, B, C and D portions in the plaint rough plan. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's property is having a doorway facing the suit lane on the northern side. According to the plaintiff, the suit lane is located in old survey No. 2257 Part which is correlatable to T.S.No.93/4. According to the plaintiff, new T.S.No.93/4 shows the suit lane is a common pathway to the plaintiff and the first defendant and also one Thillaiammal whose property is located to the north of the suit lane.
4. According to the plaintiff, the suit lane is commonly owned by the plaintiff, first defendant and one Thillaiammal. However, the defendants are preventing him from using of the said common lane. The plaintiff has further contended that the first defendant has high-handedly constructed a underground water tank in the suit common lane causing hindrance to the passage. Hence, he had prayed for permanent injunction not to disturb the usage of the suit common lane by the defendants.
5. The defendants filed a written statement contending that they have purchased the suit property under two documents from the said M.N.Srinivasan. In both the documents, it has been referred to be the exclusive lane for the defendants and their family members. The defendants had further contended that there is no doorway or any opening in the northern wall of the plaintiff's property enabling the plaintiff to have access to the suit lane. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff is running a restaurant and lodge in his property and they have permitted the occupants of the lodge to park the vehicle in the suit lane, thereby, obstructing the movement of the defendants. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit lane is common only to the defendants and the said Thillaiammal and the plaintiff does not have any right upon the title to use the suit common lane and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The trial Court after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff, the defendant and Thillaiammal are one and the same namely
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the rights of the parties regarding the usage of a common lane.
The plaintiff's failure to prove exclusive right over the suit lane and the court's reliance on documentary evidence to establish common ownership.
Injunction suits require declaration where title disputed; long continuous user of pathway protectable by status quo injunction without title or easement declaration, to preserve peace and prevent li....
Consistent recitals in prior sale deeds establish common pathway rights, prevailing over later exclusive claims absent explanation.
A suit seeking injunctive relief must include a declaration of rights to be valid; otherwise, the relief sought is unsustainable if no such declaration is made.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on historical documents and public records to determine the ownership of disputed property.
The court upheld the principle that long user and agreements can establish common property rights, even in the absence of formal title declarations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
