The plaintiff's failure to prove exclusive right over the suit lane and the court's reliance on documentary evidence to establish common ownership.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1999 made in A.S.No.73 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1996 made in O.S.No.261 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. The first appellant herein, A.Ramaseshammal, as the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.261 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, seeking the relief of permanent injunction as against the defendants/respondents 1 and 2, restraining them from interfering with her peaceful enjoyment of the third item of the suit schedule property. After the trial, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, by Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1996, decreed the suit as prayed for. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial court.

2. Challenging the same, the first defendant/first respondent herein filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.73 of 1996 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, by Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1999, allowed the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1996 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in negativing the claim of the appellant to the 2nd schedule property as a common lane belonging to him and other shares of T.S.No.390, without establishing who are all common owners of the lane, as the same is contrary to the pleadings and the relief sought for?

(ii) Whether the findings of the Court below are vitiated by its failure to consider the recitals in Exs.A4 and A5 and B2 and B3?

(iii) Whether the findings of the lower appellate court are vitiated by its erroneous approach to the pleadings and the reliefs sought for?

4. While admitting this Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the findings of the Court below are vitiated by its failure to consider the recitals in Ex.A4 and A5 and B2 and B3?

(ii) Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court are vitiated by its erroneous approach to the pleadings and the reliefs sought for?

5. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit schedule properties from one Thangathammal under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1991 and from the date of purchase, she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The first and second items of the suit schedule properties are house properties, which belong to her. In between two house properties, a common courtyard is there. On the western side of the said houses, there are two houses, which belong to one Kuppammal. Therefore, the common courtyard belongs to the plaintiff and the said Kuppammal. The third item of the suit schedule property is a lane. The said suit lane also belongs to the plaintiff and one Kuppammal and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lane as a pathway exclusively. The defendants owned houses on the eastern side of the said suit lane. The first defendant''s house bearing Door No.30 lies in Survey No.388. The second defendant''s house bearing Door No.31 lies in Survey No.389. In between two houses, a common courtyard is there and the defendants are using it as a pathway. Therefore, there is no necessity for them to use the said suit lane as a pathway to reach their houses. Further, they have no right or title over the suit lane. However, on 29.05.1992, the defendants are trying to trespass into the suit lane. Therefore, she filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, etc. from interfering w