IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.4645 of 2023 Kandasamy ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.

1. Palanisamy

2. Marappan ... Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22.10.2021 made in A.S.No.28 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court at Namakkal by confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021 made in O.S.No.216 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Namakkal.

For Appellant : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy For Respondent: Mr.K.Venkatasubban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2021 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2021 by the Additional Subordinate Court, Namakkal, the sole plaintiff herein has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff has constructed a house in Survey No.330/2 and has been residing in the said house. The plaintiff's properties are mentioned as P and P1 in the rough plan attached to the plaint (the details found in the rough plan are not admitted by the defendant). To the west of the plaintiff's property a Thar Road runs in North-South direction, a car track is situated on the north and east of plaintiff's property are shown as R1, R2 / R2, R3. The defendants' houses (H) are situated to the northern side and to the south of his house, 2^nd defendant house is situated (H1). To the western side of the houses, their lands are situated in S.No.329/4b and S.No.320 9/10. The defendants have been using the south-north Thar road and east-west Thar Road.

2.1. In order to reach his properties mentioned as P and P1, he has been using R, R1 road and thereafter using Cart Track R1, R2 and another Cart Track R2 and R3 which runs in the North-South direction. R2-R3 pathway is in existence. Since long time the breadth of the said cart track is 15 feet. He does not have any alternative pathway. His ancestors also used R1, R2 and R2, R3 cart track. Recently, he was restrained from using R2, R3 pathway that runs in North-South direction. Hence, the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. It was counteracted by the defendant by stating that there is no pathway as such in the North-South direction as mentioned in the plaint. S.No.331 land is meant for the backward community people. Defendants' houses are situated in S.No.329/10. Plaintiff has been using R, R1 South- West pathway and North-West road and straight away he may reach his land situated to the east of the said road.

4. At trial, in order to substantiate the plaint details, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and five documents have been marked. On the defendants' side, 2^nd defendant has examined himself as DW1 and three documents have been marked.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff has not proved as to the lie and location of the suit property and in what way he is claiming the cart track right and there is no cart track as such in North-South direction and therefore, it was concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and chose to dismiss the suit.

6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Sub-Court, Namakkal in A.S.No.28 of 2021. In consideration of the entire records and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, the First Appellate Court accepting the reasoning given by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

7. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction to the effect that he shall not be restrained from using cart track running in North- South direction which is situated to the North of his