Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
A. Shanmugam & Others - Appellant
Versus
Elayappan - Respondent
S.A. No. 1188 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Pathway - Property Dispute - Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A10 - The courts discussed the interpretation of the Sale Deeds and the patta to determine the right of pathway claimed by the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the right over the pathway in the defendant's property and dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed the right to use a pathway on the defendant's property for transporting agricultural products. The defendant denied their right and the lower courts ruled against the plaintiffs, leading to the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the plaintiffs did not have the right over the pathway in the defendant's property and dismissed the suit.
Issues: Dispute over the right to use a pathway on the defendant's property, validity of the plaintiffs' claim based on Sale Deeds and patta, and the nature of relief sought by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts held that the plaintiffs should have sought a declaration of their right if they were claiming a pathway right in the property belonging to the defendant. The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the right over the pathway in the defendant's property.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal stands dismissed, and there will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2013 made in A.S.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode confirming of the Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.2012 made in O.S.No.304 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.)
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the father of the 1st plaintiff namely Elayappa Gounder was the owner of the property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1949, marked as Ex.A1. He had three sons and the 1st plaintiff is one of them. S.No.405 was allotted in favour of the 1st plaintiff in a family arrangement that took place among the family of Elayappa Gounder and patta was also issued in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff and he was taking care of the cultivation of the land in S.No.405. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the portion of the land in S.No.406. According to the plaintiffs, their property lies in the west of the defendant’s land and the land belonging to one Kalyani. There is a well laid pathway which was described as Item No.1 in the suit property running North-South to Jedarpalayam main road. According to the plaintiffs, the suit pathway is their only access to the main road on the North and without the suit pathway, their entire agricultural operation will come to a grinding halt. The plaintiffs claimed that they are using the suit pathway for transporting the agricultural products in vehicles.
3. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that when they were taking their tractor through the suit property described as Item No.1, they were prevented by the defendant. The defendant started claiming exclusive right over the suit property. Left with no other option, the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of Item No.1 of the suit property. The plaintiffs also sought for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to Item No.2 of the suit property which is a well used by the plaintiffs to irrigate their agricultural lands.
4. The defendant filed the written statement and took a stand that he is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.406 and there is a pathway running North-South on the western side of the defendant’s land. However, the defendant denied the right of the plaintiffs to use the suit pathway. They also took a stand that the plaintiffs was never permitted to use the suit pathway for taking men and other vehicles. The defendant also took a stand that the plaintiffs are using the cart track that is running adjoining a river bund to reach the main road and even Ex.A1 Sale Deed mentioned only about a Mamool thadam and no right of cart track was available to the plaintiffs as claimed by them. Accordingly, he sought for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant also filed an additional written statement and took a stand that the plaintiffs do not have any right over the property in S.No.406. However, the plaintiffs managed to get a joint patta with respect to the S.No.406/3 without any document to support their right over the property.
6. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
8. This Court also carefully perused the materials available on record and the findings of both the Courts below.
9. The father of the plaintiffs purchased the property through Ex.A1 from one Sengoda Gounder and Raja Gounder. The description of the property in the Sale Deed pointed out to the existence of a Mamool thad
The necessity of seeking a declaration of right when claiming a pathway right in a property belonging to another party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
Consistent recitals in prior sale deeds establish common pathway rights, prevailing over later exclusive claims absent explanation.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of proper appreciation of evidence and the absence of substantial question of law in upholding the decree and judgment.
Interpretation of Will and Sale Deeds to determine the right to use the common cart track.
The court affirmed that the Suit Property is a Natham Pathway, granting plaintiffs limited injunction against obstruction until defendants prove their title.
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
