Ownership claims over land intended for private retention fail when revenue records, physical features, and long-term public usage, such as civic infrastructure, establish the disputed area as a public street.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Challenging the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.

2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonging to plaintiffs’ father Kesava Mudaliar under the Settlement Deed dated 19.06.1946. The plaintiffs’ father plotting out the suit property and sold the plots to third parties. While plotted out his property, the plaintiffs’ father retained a strip of land with a width of 10 feet on the ‘A’ schedule property, which is more fully described in the red color portion in the plaint plan for having ingress and egress. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 10 feet passage retained by the plaintiffs’ father was his private property and no other persons can have any manner of access over the same. The 1^st defendant is the owner of the land on the eastern side of the disputed passage. The 2^nd defendant seems to have entered into a Sale Agreement with the 1^st defendant. The defendants without having any manner of right attempting to interfere with physical possession of the suit property over the disputed 10 feet passage and hence, the present suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. In the plaint schedule, the disputed portion has been shown as strip of land on the Southern Side are the vacant site with east-west measurement of 310 feet and North-South measurement of 14 feet on the Western Side and 21 feet on the Eastern Side.

4. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement and resisted the suit by claiming that the red colored portion of the disputed passage shown in the plaint plan, is a public street and the general public are entitled to have ingress and egress over the same. The allegation in the plaint as if, the plaintiffs’ father reserved the disputed property for his own use was specifically denied. It was also stated that the red marked disputed passage has been under the maintenance of Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Tharapadavedu and the 2^nd defendant also raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties as the ground of defence.

5. The defendants 4 and 5 filed a separate written statement and claimed that the disputed passage is a public road and named as ‘Gandhi Road’. It was also stated that all the residents of that locality are entitled to use the disputed passage as it is a public road. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the Trial Court, the 1^st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and

4 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as Exs.A1 to A4. The defendants 4 and 5 have been examined as DW.1 and DW.2 respectively. 5 other witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants as DW3 to DW.7. 9 documents were marked on behalf of the defendants as Exs.B1 to B9. The Advocate Commissioner’s report, plan and its annexures were marked as Exs.C1 to C5. Apart from these exhibits, 13 documents were marked as Exs.X1 to X13.

7. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the disputed suit passage is a public street and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Vellore. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come