SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5188

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
M.N.Prabhakaran - Appellant 
Vs.
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple Represented by its Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner Madurai - Respondent 
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.827 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.4426 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.J.Barathan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Manohar, Mr.K.K.Kannan

Landowners adjacent to public roads maintain a fundamental right of access to their properties, regardless of alternate access points, supporting public interest and use.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Suit for permanent injunction - Dismissal of interim injunction application by lower courts challenged - The plaintiff sought to prevent defendants from obstructing access to the property abutting a public street. Courts found that the plaintiff has access through a different road and did not establish a prima facie case, invoking the principle that a landowner adjacent to a public road has a right of access at every point to said road. (Paras 9, 10, 26, 32, and 36)

(B) Public Rights - Access to Public Roads - Landowners have a vested right to access their properties from adjoining public roads as established in prior judgments. Property rights must be balanced with public interest and convenience when considering access issues. (Paras 26, 27, and 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property with supposed access to a public road, Teppakulam West Street, while the defendants contended the road is private and had rights to construct a wall. The trial courts determined that the plaintiff had other means of access and dismissed the injunction.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the lower courts misinterpreted property access rights and this led to the improper dismissal of the injunction application. The court ruled that the plaintiff should have access to the public road.

Issues: The primary legal issues considered were the plaintiff's right of access to the public road and the validity of the defendants' claims of ownership over the road.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed established legal principles that landowners of properties adjoining public roads retain access rights and that the existence of alternate access does not negate this entitlement.

Result: Civil revision petition allowed; interim injunction granted.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property rights and dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. judicial observations on property access and public road status. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
3. arguments regarding access and ownership rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. established rights of access for property owners. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
5. final order granting injunction and addressing plaintiff's access. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.591 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of his interim injunction application which was confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in CMA.No.2 of 2020.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from constructing any wall or putting up any fence on the eastern boundary of item No.1 of the schedule mentioned properties abutting the Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) and thereby obstructing the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff from Item No.1 through Item No.2.

3.A perusal of the plaint averment reveals that the plaintiff had purchased first item of the property under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017. Under the said document, he had purchased 1670 sq.ft in T.S.No.225/2D. In the boundary recital, Kamarajar Salari, Ramanthapuram Road is shown as northern boundary. Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) is shown as eastern boundary. The other two boundaries are owned by the private parties.

4.According to the plaintiff, both Kamarajar Salai as well as Teppakulam West Street are public roads. It is further averred that in the Teppakulam West Street, the property of the plaintiff and several other properties namely, Punnavana Nadar Marriage Hall, The Gita Nadanagopala Nayagi Manthir, Thiagarajar College of Preceptors, Sri Muktheeswarar Temple, Siddasramam and Meenakshi Sundareswarar Girls Higher Secondary School are situated. It is further averred that the southern end of Teppakulam West Street is connected to Anupanadi Road.

5.It is further averred that the 2nd item of the property namely Teppakulam West Street is located in T.S.No.210 and it is a cement road used by the general public, vehicles and city buses are plying for over 100 years. It is also contended that the corporation has erected street lights and public drainage run on either side of Teppakulam West Street. A city bus stop is also located. A bus shelter has been erected by Madurai Corporation. All the properties owners, including the plaintiff having property abutting Teppakulam West Street on its eastern side, has got right of ingress and egress through the said street.

6.It is alleged by the plaintiff that the officials of the defendants 1 and 2 came to the property on 09.10.2019 and attempted to erect a compound wall on the wester margin of Teppakulam West Street which is the eastern boundary of Item No.1 of the schedule mentioned property. If such a compound wall is constructed, the plaintiff will not have any ingress and egress to the Teppakulam West Street. It further contended that a person having property abutting a street or road or highway has got right to enter through every point of access in his property. On 11.10.2019, the subordinates of defendants 1 and 2 started to dig up pits for erecting pillars for constructing the compound wall. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. Along with the suit, an application seeking interim injunction was filed in I.A.No.575 of 2019 contending that unless an order of temporary injunction is granted and the defendants 1 and 2 are prevented from putting up a compound wall, he would be put to great hardship.

7.The defendants 1 and 2 herein had filed a counter contending that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top