The courts affirmed that ownership through valid title and continuous possession determines property rights, emphasizing that plaintiffs must assert declarations before counter-claims can be adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2013 passed in O.S.No.263 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. For brevity, the parties are referred to herein, as they are ranked before the trial Court, as plaintiff and defendants.

4. The suit in O.S.No.263 of 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff stating as under:

(a) The property and other items are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff's family and in possession of the family for a long time. There is a cattle shed in A-schedule property and cows are tethered there. The cow-dung and hay-rick are stored in A-schedule property. Earlier, the plaintiff's brother Gunasekaran and Kannan have jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.157 of 1996 before the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, against the plaintiff and his children for partition and separate possession. A compromise decree was passed therein, wherein the suit A-schedule property was allotted to the share of the said Kannan, who was in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff purchased the suit A-schedule property from Kannan by means of a registered sale deed, dated 15.11.1999. Ever-since, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of A-schedule property in his own right. He has also prescribed title by adverse possession.

(b) The B-schedule property is the house bearing Door No.3 in Kallarai Street and it was allotted to the share of the said Gunasekaran, who was not residing in the B-schedule property. The plaintiff and the said Kannan are residing in the B-schedule property. C-schedule property is the South Kallarai Street, which is a public road with every citizen having right of way. The plaintiff in particular has the right of ingress and egress to the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and has every right to use it, as there is no other way. The plaintiff has prescribed the right of easement and no-one can prevent the plaintiff from using the C-schedule property.

(c) It is the duty of the fourth defendant to ensure the existence of the road and preserve the right of access to its subjects. The defendants 1 to 3 are the daughter, mother and son respectively and they are inimically disposed of towards the plaintiff.

(d) With a view to grab the plaintiff's property, since 28.05.2000, they are making concerted efforts to block the road beyond their limits by putting up unauthorised constructions, thereby, they wanted to obstruct the plaintiff's usage of A and B-schedule properties. It is only an attempt to pressurise the plaintiff to dispose of the property. The defendants 1 to 3 were adamant in raising unauthorised construction in the C-schedule property. The fourth defendant is only a mute spectator. If any encroachment is made, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and hence, the suit is filed for declaration of plaintiff's title to use C-schedule property as a “public pathway” to reach A and B-schedule items and consequently to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's right to use the C-schedule property as a public pathway to reach A and B-schedule properties and alternatively, it was sought to declare the plaintiff's right of easement to use the C-schedule property as a public way to reach A and B-schedule properties and also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, against in any manner interfering with plaintiff's right to use C-schedule property as a right of easement to reach A and B-schedule items and also to direct the fo