THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA S.A.(MD).No.445 of 2007 R.Srikrishnan ... Plaintiff/Respondent Appellant Vs

1.T.P.Raveendran

2.Asha Raveendran ... Defendants/Appellants Respondents P RAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani dated 07.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2006 and restore the decree and judgment of the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal dated

21.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.79 of 1998.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Madhavan For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajasekar

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2006 dated 07.11.2006 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal, made in O.S.No. 79 of 1998 dated 21.09.2005. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court. The defendants are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

3.The suit property in TS.No.119, is a road belonging to the third defendant. It lies between S.No.120 and 121, belonging to the plaintiff and T.S.No.118 belonging to the defendants 1 and 2. There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding T.S.No.121 and 118. As far as T.S.No.120 is concerned, there is a dispute over the title, and the same is pending adjudication in O.S.No.1 of 1998, before the Sub Court, Palani. That the suit property is a pathway, is clear from the title documents of the defendants 1 and 2 dated 11.09.1995, wherein the western boundary of the property is described as Township road. Since the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to obstruct the plaintiff from accessing the suit township road by putting up constructions, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit pathway is a public road and a for consequential injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from obstructing his enjoyment of the same.

4.The defendants filed a written statement admitting the title of the plaintiff to T.S.No.118 and 120. The defendants also admitted that there was a suit pending in O.S.No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, with regard to the title to the property in T.S.No. 120. The defendants contended that due to previous enmity, the plaintiff had falsely alleged that the defendants encroached upon the public road. The defendants contended that the suit pathway was not a pucca road and further the road was unused and fell into disuse due to growth of dense vegetation. The defendants further contended that it was the plaintiff who had encroached upon the suit road by constructing houses in T.S.No.119 and 122, causing hindrance to the defendants. Therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5.Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked three documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no document was marked.

6.The Trial Court after framing necessary issues on the basis of the evidence placed before it decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the order of the Trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2006. The lower appellate Court by judgment dated 07.11.2006 reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal.

7.At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

“1.Whether on the face of admission of encroachment on the side of the defendant the decree given by the trial Court is reversible by the appellate Court only on ground of better evidence?

2.Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in remarking that heaping of construction materials on the road could only be a temporary overlooking the fact that the defendant is a building contractor storing the same there? 3.Whether t