Property owners abutting public pathways retain rights of access from all boundary points, protecting against unauthorized constructions infringing these access rights.

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam partly reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2007 made in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.

3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction restraining from putting any construction affecting the plaintiff’s right of pathway to the suit property and for removing the construction shown as item No.2 in the description of property.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.

5. Case of the plaintiff:

The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the 1st item of suit property measuring 2520 sq.ft vacant site and compound wall situated on the southern side to the extent of 37 ¼ feet with 3 metres height. There is a pathway on the southern side of the said property, which is the only access for the plaintiff to reach the main road. The pathway was in existence and used by the plaintiff and his predecessor in title for more than the statutory period and there is no ingress and aggress except the pathway. The defendants have no right to obstruct the plaintiff’s pathway. Since the defendants attempted to obstruct the right, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. Pending suit the defendants constructed a building obstructing the access of the plaintiff to reach the road. The constructed portion shown as 2^nd item and the plaintiff also claimed removal of the above said construction.

6. Case of the Defendants The southern portion of the plaintiff’s property is a poramboke in S.No.2274 to an extent of 0.19.0 ares belonged to the Government and there is a road in it. As per order of the District Collector, a school building was constructed by the Uthampalayam Panchayat union in 0.02.0 ares out of the said 0.19.0 ares. The entire 2^nd item of property is poramboke land and the exclusive property of the government, the defendants have all right to construct a building in it. There is no obstruction for the public in using the road. On the southern side of plaintiff’s property, there is 20 feet breadth pathway. The plaintiff falsely averred that the building caused obstruction for his ingress and egress to reach the road. Hence, the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is vexatious one and liable to be dismissed.

7. During trial, on the plaintiff side, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and nine exhibits Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. On the defendants' side, D.W.1 was examined and eleven exhibits were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11.

In addition, advocate/commissioner’s report and sketch were marked as Ex.C.1 and ExC.2.

8. The trial Court/District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam framed the following four issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction in respect of 1^st item of suit property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction in respect of 2^nd item of suit property?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs averment that he has right of access from any of point of 1^st item to reach the southern side road is correct?

(4) whether the plaintiff’s averment that the plaintiff could not be able to enjoy the pathway to reach the road is correct?

(5) To what other the relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

9. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, concluded that the plaintiff has proved his