IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

1.C.Perumal (died)

2.Thangammal 3.P.Sasikumar 4.P.Thavamani

5.Kala

6.Akilandeshwari st (1 appellant died . Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as L.Rs of deceased st

1 appellant vide Court order dated 02.08.2023 made in CMP.No.4637/2022) ... Appellants /Plaintiffs Vs

1.R.Arjunan

2.Lakshmi ... Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.47 of 2011, dated 21.11.2011 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.271 of 2009, dated 11.02.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

For Appellants : Ms.P.Veena Suresh For Respondents : Mr.Ruban Chakkaravarthi for M/s.Kaithamalai Kumaran JUDGMENT This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2011 by the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem reversing the Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2011 made in O.S.No.271 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The parties are indicated as per the litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff viz, C.Perumal , s/o.Chinnathambi Gounder of Panangadu, Andipatti, Sivthapuram, Salem Taluk, the suit property is a private road belonging to the plaintiff and situated in S.No.15/10B. The said property is part of the property purchased by the plaintiff's father one Chinnathambi Gounder and the plaintiff, on the death of his father, succeeded to the properties. The legal heirs of Arumuga Gounder and Chinnathambi Gounder appointed one Rathinam, S/o.Annathaa Gounder of Pottiyapuram as Power of Attorney to sell their lands in S.No.14/3 – 0.12 cents, in S.Nos.14/5A - 0.22 cents, in S.No.14/5B - 0.19 cents in S.No.14/7 0.28 cents, in S.No.14/8, 0.07 cents, in S.No.14/9 - 0.08 cents, in S.No.15/10A, - 0.06 cents, in S.No.15/10zb, - 0.05 cents, in S.No.15/7 - 0.23 ½ cents, in S.No.15/18 – 0.16 cents. The plaintiff and above said persons had given power to sell the above lands with a right of easement/ right of way in the suit land by way of grant only the above lands. The right of way was given by the plaintiff from the Siddharkoil main Road to the above mentioned lands only. The power of attorney has no authority to give right of way to any other lands other than the above mentioned.

3.1. The easementary right has to be enjoyed only according to the extent of grant. The owner of the land should not be burdened by any excess or unauthorized use. Any excess use or unauthorized use is illegal. The defendants are neighbouring land owners. They have got lands on the east, west and south of the properties of the plaintiff and others. There is a way to the defendants lands from Siddhar Koil Main Road. There is a panchayat road on the southern and western side of the defendants' land.

3.2. The said Rathinam attempted to sell the right of way to the said land to other party. The act of Rathinam is in excess of the authority given under the deed. Such unauthorized act is not valid and binding upon the plaintiff's.

3.3. Notice to the said Rathinam was issued by the plaintiff and the suit in O.S.No.649 of 2008 was filed before the District Munsif Court, Salem. On 25.03.2009, the defendants and their men attempted to take bullock cart with mud to their lands through the suit land. The defendants have no right or interest to take cart or use the land as way to their lands on the east, west and south of the lands covered under Power of Attorney deed dated

13.12.2007.

3.4. The defendants and their men have to be restrained by means of permanent injunction from in any way interfering or using the suit land as pathway to their properties on the south, east and west of the properties covered under Power of Attorney Deed dated 13.12.2007.

4. Contending contra, the defendants who are the husb