JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2.The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.1240 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the the first defendant or any person claiming under him from in any way interfering or preventing the plaintiff's right of user of the suit road shown in 'B' schedule property vested with the second defendant as access to 'A' schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed A.S.No.11 of 2019 before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the said appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed.

3.The plaintiff had contended that he is the owner of 'A' schedule property by means of two sale deeds dated 30.03.1995 and 03.07.1995 under which he has purchased the same from one Thangaraj. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff had further contended that the said 'A' schedule property is located in T.S.No.23/2B. In the west of the said 'A' schedule there is a road in T.S.No.22/3 and T.S.No.8. The said road has been shown as 'B' schedule in the suit.

4.The plaintiff had further contended that the first defendant and his brother were owning vacant plots on the western side and also on the southern side of the road. The first defendant and his brother sold all the vacant site to various persons including hospital and flats. According to the petitioner, 'B' schedule road is the access road for reaching Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan College Medical and Engineering College. The plaintiff had further contended that the first defendant and his brother have left the road in 'B' schedule property as the road for all the purchasers to have access through the road. It is the metal road and the plaintiff was gaining entry into his property through a gate facing the suit road located in 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff had further contended that in the year 2008, he prepared a plan for construction of commercial building in 'A' schedule property and the second defendant has sanctioned the plan on 06.05.2008. In the said building plan, 'B' schedule road shown as existing road for 'A' schedule property.

5.The plaintiff had further that the second respondent Corporation had directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.4,10,050/- for development of 'B' schedule road. Accordingly, the said amount was paid by the plaintiff on 12.11.2008 and on 12.05.2010 to the Director of Town and Country Planning Authorities towards the Provisions of basic amenities and infrastructure for rain water harvesting.

6.The plaintiff had further contended that the second defendant had taken over 'B' schedule property after calling for tender and thereafter has laid a Thar road and also provided street lights and laid under ground drainage connection and drinking water connection to all the premises facing 'B' schedule road. The plaintiff had further contended that the Corporation in exercise of their power under Section 225 of Trichy City Municipal Corporation Act, made it as a public road and the same is vested with the Corporation. The plaintiff had contended that he has been using 'B' schedule road even since it was formed and also after a commercial construction was made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had further contended that he has let out his building to various institutions and the tenant also using the said road as a public road in order to reach their respective portion through the gate in the 'A' schedule property.

7.The plaintiff had further contended that suddenly the first defendant has lodged a complaint to the local police that the 'B' schedule property has been grabbed by the plaintiff. However on enquiry, the authorities have closed the said complaint. He had further contended that the first defendant has no right to prevent the plaintiff to use the 'B' schedule pr