Revenue records do not confer title; legal rights must be established through title deeds.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff/counter claim defendant has filed this appeal challenging the concurrent findings entered into by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The dispute is with respect to a pathway which is scheduled as plaint schedule item No.2 property and counterclaim schedule item No.2. According to the plaintiff, the width of the pathway is 2.5 feet, According to the defendants it is having a width of 4 feet.

3. As per the original averments in the plaint, the property of the 1st defendant is situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule item No.1 property of the plaintiff; that Panchayat road is on the southern side of the plaint Schedule Item No.1 property, that the 1st defendant is having a pathway to enter into their property, however when they demanded the plaintiff to grant a beaten track, the plaintiff had permitted the defendant to pass through a portion having 2‰ feet width through the plaint schedule item No.1, which is included in the Plaint Schedule; that the plaintiff constructed boundary wall and barbed fence leaving the said 2‰ feet wide plaint schedule pathway.

4. Later, the pleading that the defendants have no right over the plaint schedule item no.1 property except plaint schedule item No.2 property in which they have only limited right of travel through the said pathway was deleted and he further contended that when the case was referred for mediation, the defendant claimed right over the way and hence the plaintiff withdrew the permission granted to the defendants to use Plaint schedule Item No.2 property as pathway and that the defendants have no right over plaint schedule Item No.2 pathway. Attempts of encroachments were also alleged on 17.08.2016 and 01.12.2018.

5. The defendants opposed the suit prayers contending that the pathway having a width of 4 feet starting from the southern panchayat road and reaching his property is specifically mentioned in the title deeds of the defendants and his predecessors. It is the only means of access to enter into their property. The plaintiff made construction encroaching into the pathway. The defendants 1 and 2 filed Counter Claim claiming declaration of their right of way over the 4 feet wide pathway, which is shown as Counter Claim Item no.2 pathway and mandatory and prohibitory injunctions

6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counterclaim, declaring the right of way of the first counterclaim plaintiff over the counterclaim schedule item No.2 pathway on the strength of title and directing the counterclaim defendants to remove the boundary wall constructed by him by encroaching into counterclaim schedule item No.2 property as reported by the Commissioner in Exts.C2 and C2(a) and further restraining the counterclaim defendants from causing obstructions in the enjoyment of counterclaim schedule item No.2 pathway by the counterclaim plaintiffs.

7. The plaintiff/counter claim defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

8. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. N.N.Sasi.

9. Learned Counsel argued that though Ext.A1 Title Deed covers only 8 cents of land, he is in possession of 10 cents of land and he has been paying land tax for the same. The extent of 10 cents is recorded in his Thandaper Account also. It is on the basis of the permission granted by the plaintiff, the defendants started walking through the plaint schedule Item No.1 property. Later, during the pendency of the suit, the said permission was withdrawn by the plaintiff and hence the defendants have no right to walk through the plaint schedule item No.1 property.

10. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the dispute is with respect to the nature of the pathway as well as the width of the said pathway. The existence of the pathway is having a width of 2.5 fee