The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises, and if that right is obstructed by any one the owner of the land abutting the highway is entitled to maintain an action for the injury.

JUDGMENT:- The defendants are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to and possession of Item 1, for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of way over Item 2 and for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the obstruction on Item 2 preventing plaintiffs' access to the highway. The plaintiffs' case is that their father Chokkalinga Chetti became entitled to the suit first item under an usufructuary mortgage deed dated 21-6-1935, that he died in 1940 when the plaintiff's were minors, that one Sri P. Raghavan, advocate, was appointed by the District Court as the guardian for them, that the said guardian leased out the suit first item to Venkatarama Naidu, the elder brother of the defendants, under a lease deed dated 1-8-1947, that the lessee was in possession of Item 1 till his death and thereafter his widow continued to be in possession as a tenant, that the plaintiffs after attaining majority filed O.S.14 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trivellore, for recovery of possession of item 1, that the suit was dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal the plaintiff's succeeded, that when the plaintiffs

attempted to take delivery of Item 1, the present defendants obstructed the delivery, that the plaintiffs filed an application for removal of obstruction, which was allowed, that the delivery was not effected and while the plaintiffs were seeking to take steps to recover actual delivery, the defendants hastily put up a wall on the west of item 2, that the said wall completely prevented the plaintiffs' access to the highway, that the plaintiffs, whose lands (item 1) abut the public road, are thus prevented from having access from their lands to the highway and that the defendants are unlawfully putting up obstructions with a view to see that the plaintiffs give up their properties. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the reliefs already mentioned.

2. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement. Their case is that the plaintiff's or their father have no title to or possession of item 1, that item 1 belonged to a Trust, that the second defendant is living in Item 1 for over 12 years that the defendants were not aware of the proceedings in O.S.14 of 1969, that item 2 was not the subject-matter of the suit, that the access from item 1 to the public highway was not along AB in item

2. that the plaintiff's never owned any property west of the trunk road, that the defendants are in possession and have put up constructions at their cost and that the plaintiffs have not title to or possession of the suit properties.

3. The second defendant filed a separate written statement contending that the lease deed executed by the plaintiffs' father in 1947 was a fabricated one, got up for the purpose of the suit.

4. The trial court held that the plaintiffs had title to and possession of item I, that the second defendant had not prescribed title to the same by adverse possession, that the plaintiffs are entitled to have access at any point along AB in item 2 to the road and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. In the result, the suit was decreed as prayed for.

5. The defendant filed A.S. No.15 of 1967 to the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput. The learned Judge confirmed the decision of the trial court and upheld the plaintiffs' title and possession in regard to item 1. In regard to item 2, the learned Judge held that it is clearly a road margin, that the owner or enjoyer of item (1) was entitled to have access to the road at any point where item (1) touched the road namely AB, that there was no need to establish any special injury in case of interference by any one with the plaintiffs' right of access to the road, he being the owner of item 1 abutting the highway. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

6. The defendants have filed the above second appeal. Item 1, which is a house site, is of the extent of about 1/3rd ground (40ft x 20ft). A