Madrasdated High Court · 2025

SA No. 997 of 20104.P.PerumalS/o.Late.Ponnusamy Chinnaperumalkuppam Village, Hamlet Of Erukkampattu Village, Katpadi Tk. Vellore District.5.P.DevendranS/o.Late.Ponnusamy Chinnaperumalkuppam Village, Hamlet Of Erukkampattu Village, Katpadi Tk. Vellore District.6.P.MahendranS/O.LATE.PONNUSAMY CHINNAPERUMALKUPPAM VILLAGE, HAMLET OF ERUKKAMPATTU VILLAGE, KATPADI TK. VELLORE DISTRICT. (R1 died, RR 3 TO 6 are the LEGAL HEIRS OF 1ST RESPONDENT LATE. PONNUSAMY vide court order dated 06/10/2025 made in CMP.No.13154 of 2021 in S.A.No.997 of 2010)..Respondent(s)PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.70 of 2007 dated 30.11.2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore, which was confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10 of 2002 dated 29.06.2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate No.1, Wallajapet. For Appellant(s):Mr.B.GOPALAKRISHNANFor Respondent(s):Ms.R.REVATHY FOR R2 Ms.V.SRIMATHI FOR R3 TO R5 __________Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.70 of 2007 dated 30.11.2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore, which has confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10 of 2002 dated 29.06.2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate No.1, Wallajapet. 2. Heard Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.R.Revathy, learned counsel for R2 and Ms.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for R3 to R5 and perused the materials available on record. 3. The defendants 1 to 4 in the suit had filed this Second Appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal, the appellants 3 and 4 and the first respondent died. The legal heirs of the deceased Appellants 3 and 4 have been impleaded as A5 to A9 and the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent has been impleaded as R3 to R6. The suit has been filed by the deceased first respondent against the appellants and the second respondent Block Development Officer, Sholinghur for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of B schedule pathway. The Trial Court has decreed the suit. The First __________Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010Appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 also got dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the defendants 1 to 4 have filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court by raising the following substantial questions of law :“(i) Whether the Courts below rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit schedule of property under the suit schedule of property under the adverse possession?(ii) Whether the Courts below rightly noted the plaintiff has filed the documents to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to the 'B' schedule property?(iii) Whether the plaintiff was proved that he is entitled to the possession of the 'B' schedule of property?”4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as under: The suit property described under 'A' schedule is absolutely belonged to the plaintiff as it was a self-acquired property by virtue of the sale deed dated 15.11.1969. From the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The B schedule property pathway which has been used by the plaintiff and his family members for more than a decade as an approach to the Main Road from the 'A' schedule property for carrying food, grains, sugarcane and paddy etc. from the 'A' schedule property from Kokeri to Ramapuram. The __________Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010defendant who are adjacent land owners had tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the 'B' schedule property by digging over the pathway and by obstructing the pathway by placing boulder stones. The action of the defendants is unjust and high handed.5. The averments made in the written statement of the first defendant adopted by the other defendants are as follows:There is no 'B' schedule pathway as alleged by the plaintiff. The property particulars does not even mention about the survey number of the pathway. Because, the property absolutely belonged to the defendants and patta also stands in their name. There is a separate pathway running from the plaintiff’s property to the main road in a round about way as evidenced by the revenue records. Since 'B' schedule property is the shortcut to approach the road by the plaintiff, he tries to create easementary right which is actually not in existence. The survey field map and the revenue records does not show any such pathway to road as alleged by the plaintiff. Had there been a pathway used as alleged by the plaintiff for such a long time, the revenue records would have reflected the same. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, the suit should be dismissed.__________Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 20106. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:“1/ thjpapd; brhj;Jf;Fk; bfhf;nfhp uhkhg[uk; bry;Yk; rhiy eLnt tHp ghij ,y;iy vd;whYk;/ tHp ghij vd;W thjp tpthpj;Js;sJ gpujpthjpapd; KG chpika[ila brhj;J vd;gJk; gpujpthjpfs; me;j tHp ghijapd; mDgtj;jpYk;. Rthjpdj;jpYk; cs;shh;fs; vd;gJ rhpah>2/ thjp tHp ghijapd; rh;nt vz;id Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;Wk;. me;j tHp[ ghij gpujpthjpfspd; bgahpy; gl;lh cs;sJ vd;gJk; *gp* ,e brhj;jpy; thjpf;F ve;jtpj chpika[k; ,y;iy vd;Wk;. me;j brhj;jpy; g[Hf;f chpik ,y;iy vd;gJk; rhpah> 3/ gpujpthjpfs; *gp* ml;ltiz brhj;jpd; KG chpikahsh; vd;gJ rhpah>4/ ePjpkd;w Mizapd; mwpf;if kw;Wk; tiuglk; bgha;ahdJ vd;gJk; bjsptw;wJ vd;gJk; rhpah>5/ thjp mth; nfhUk; ghpfhu';fis bgwj;jf;ftuh>6/ thjpf;F tHf;fyhFk; ,ju ghpfhu';fs; ahit>”7. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, five witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, five witnesses have been examined as D.W.1 to D.W.5 and Exhibits B1 to B9 were marked. The Commissioner’s report and sketch has been marked as Exhibits C1 and C2. The witness documents have been marked as Exhibit X1 and X2. At the conclusion of the trial, on considering the evidence available on record, the Trial Court has __________Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the defendants has also been dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first respondent / plaintiff never claimed that 'B' schedule property belonged to him. Without admitting the title, easementary right would not arise. The description of the 'B' schedule property has also not been given properly in the suit schedule and that was ignored by the Courts below. The appellants' father had filed a suit against the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.483 of 1990 for claiming injunction in respect of declaration and injunction and that was decreed in the year 1991. Without establishing any customary or easementary right, the first respondent / plaintiff cannot be granted with the relief as prayed. In the name of using the pathway, the first respondent / plaintiff tries to encroach the lands belonging to the appellants. Even though the plaintiff has not given the survey number for the suit 'B' schedule property, the defendants have stated in their written statement itself that 'B' schedule property is the defendants' own property to take their cattle to their fields from their property and this is purely a private property of the defendants which lies in S.No.20/2. __________Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 20109. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, the oral evidence of D.W.1 has been appreciated by extracting his admissions where he has stated that the earlier suit is said to have been filed by his father against the first respondent / plaintiff. But, he did not know the property particulars of that suit. From the suit register extract which was marked as Ex.B2, it is learnt that the above suit has been filed by the appellants' father Govindaiya that in S.No.20/1, there was already a pathway and hence, the first respondent and others shall not try to put up any fresh pathway.10. The appellants / defendants in their written statement has admitted that the survey number pertains to 'B' schedule property and also claims that they are the owner of the said property. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff did not have any necessity to prove the ownership of the appellants for the 'B' schedule property. In fact, P.W.3 has been confronted with two important documents which were Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. Ex.A7 is the sale deed executed by one Duraisamy on 04.09.1978. Even in the said sale deed, there is a specific mention that the appellants / defendants shall not cause any disturbance to the pathway in S.No.20/2. So, it is not only the first respondent / plaintiff, there are others who used the pathway in S.No.20/2.__________Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 201011. Ex.A8 is another sale deed of the appellants' family, wherein also there is a condition about leaving a pathway as per the Government rules in S.No.20/1. As Ex.A8 is dated 15.02.1980 and Exhibits A7 and A8 are 30 years old documents and they are the sale deeds of the appellants' father, the appellants / defendants cannot take a different stand than that of the recitals in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. The sale deeds pertains to S.Nos.20/1 and 20/2 would only show that the appellants are obliged to leave a pathway of specified measurement and should not interfere in other's enjoyment of the pathway. In fact, the Block Development Officer has sent a reply to the petition filed by the third appellant on the allegation that a road is going to be formed in the land belonging to her. 12. The Block Development Officer who was examined as P.W.3 has stated in his evidence that there is no proposal of laying any pathway in any private person's land. As per the evidence of P.W.4, he has stated that the third appellant has submitted a letter to his office saying that in S.No.20/2, a pathway originates and it runs upto the hill and that is being used by the public. The said public pathway is situated in S.No.20/2 for which patta has been given in the name of the defendants. As the pathway was in existence even right from the appellants' father's purchase of the properties in the year 1978 and 1980 __________Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010through Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and the defendants themselves have admitted in their written statement that 'B' schedule property is in S.No.20/2 for which they hold patta, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are right in admitting the claim of the plaintiff that there was an easementary right in the form of pathway running in S.No.20/2. 13. In fact the plaintiff's witness P.W.3 who is the then Panchayat President has also stated in his evidence that he had produced Ex.A4 document that a resolution has been passed to improvise the pathway running in S.No.20/2 and 20/1. Even though the property might belonged to the appellants' father and thereafter the appellants, the fact remains that there are some pathways in S.Nos.20/2 and 20/1 and which have been enjoyed as a common pathway. When both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated the above significant facts revealed in the documents filed by the other side and had also got convinced with the report of the Commissioner about the existence of the pathway and also the evidence of P.W.4, had arrived at a right conclusion that the property in S.No.20/2 is a pathway and that is in existence even when the appellants' father purchased the said property through Exs.A7 and A8.__________Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010 14. As the evidence available on record would also confirm the fact that those pathways were being used not only by the plaintiff and also by the public as pathway to reach the road, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is right in granting the decree as prayed by the first respondent / plaintiff. In fact, the appellants' father Govindaiya had filed an earlier suit in O.S.No.483 of 1990 and had been given with the relief as well. 15. As stated already, one of the appellants viz.,Bakkiyammal has given an application to the Block Development Officer and in which also she has narrated that there was a pathway in S.No.20/2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the name of using the above pathway, the plaintiff is trying to encroach the private lands of the defendants. But, this was not the pleading of the appellants in their written statement. Neither the appellants have filed any counter suit for praying any relief on this basis. Hence, I do not find any scope for any question of law or substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal as claimed by the appellants. 16. In the result, this Second Appeal is rejected. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index: Yes/No25-10-2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoGSK__________Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010To1.The Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore.2.The District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate No.1, Wallajapet. 3.The Black Development Officer, Sholinghur.4. P.ThangaveluS/o.Late.Ponnusamy Chinnaperumalkuppam Village, Hamlet Of Erukkampattu Village, Katpadi Tk. Vellore District.5.P.PerumalS/o.Late.Ponnusamy Chinnaperumalkuppam Village, Hamlet Of Erukkampattu Village, Katpadi Tk. Vellore District.6. P.DevendranS/o.Late.Ponnusamy Chinnaperumalkuppam Village, Hamlet Of Erukkampattu Village, Katpadi Tk. Vellore District.7. P.MahendranS/O.LATE.PONNUSAMY CHINNAPERUMALKUPPAM VILLAGE, HAMLET OF ERUKKAMPATTU VILLAGE, KATPADI TK. VELLORE DISTRICT. __________Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 997 of 2010DR.R.N.MANJULA, J.GSKSA No. 997 of 2010 andM.P.No.1 of 201025.10.2025__________Page 14 of 14