BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.(MD)No.197 of 2005 Adidravidar Uravinmurai Makkal through its present President P.Muthu, S/o.Periyapandi ... Appellant (Cause title accepted vide order dated 24.02.2005 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.1570/2005)

(Name of the appellant is substituted vide Court order dated 10.12.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.

10166 of 2021 in S.A.(MD)No.197 of 2005)

Vs

1.Marimuthu Thevar (Died)

2.Aruppukkottai Municipality, Through its Commissioner, Aruppukkottai Town.

3.Mahendran

4.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

5.Janaki Ramachandran ... Respondents (R3 to R5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1, vide Court order dated 06.04.2022 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2022)

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.214 of 2001 dated 26.04.2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.186 of 1998 dated 15.12.2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Rajkumar for Mr.K.Kothimani For Respondents : No Appearance for R2 to R5 R1 – Died

JUDGMENT

The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent filed a suit for declaration declaring that the suit property is a street and for consequential injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with his right to use the same. The first respondent also sought for a mandatory injunction for removal of certain constructions put up by the first defendant in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the first defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. According to the first respondent plaintiff, the suit property belonged to second defendant Municipality and the same has been used as a public street by the general public. The plaintiff's property situated on the South of suit property and he has been using the suit property as an access to reach his property. The first defendant, who is an association of persons, started construction in the suit property, obstructing the right available to the plaintiff and other general public. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for the above said reliefs.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and raised a technical objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant association viz., Adidravidar Uravinmurai Makkal is not a juristic personality and therefore, the suit filed against it was not maintainable. The first defendant also claimed that the suit property was never used as a street by the general public and a Madam has been constructed in the suit property for the benefits of members of the first defendant. Thus, claiming that the suit property is a property of the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement claiming that the suit property is a public street belonged to the second defendant and the first defendant had put up a building in the suit property without the permission of the second defendant and hence, necessary proceedings were initiated against the first defendant. On these pleadings, second defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit property was used as a public street on ground and granted decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.214 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Aruppukkottai. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the concurrent findings, the first defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal.

6. This Court at the time of admission formulated the following substantial questions of law by