Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11378 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 June, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
1.M.J.T.Philip
2.Mary Jayakumari ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Pransis
2.Pushpalatha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated
11.02.2021 passed by the Sub Court, Padmanabapuram in A.S.
No.43 of 2018 confirming the judgment and decree dated
13.06.2018 passed by the Additional District Munsiff Court,
Padmanabapuram in O.S.No.88 of 2015 and allow this second
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Samidurai
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs, who lost before both the Courts below, have
filed the above second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
2.The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of
declaring their right of pathway and for permanent injunction. The
appellants had placed their claims by heavily relying upon the sale
deed executed in their favour, which was marked as Ex.A1. The
specific case of the appellants is that “B” schedule property is the
only access to their property situated in “A” schedule property and
the same was in enjoyment for more than 33 years without any
interruption. In short, the appellants were claiming an
easementary right of way.
3.The Courts below on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, came to a categorical conclusion that even
as per the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.A1, there was
absolutely no indication that “B” schedule property was the
pathway through which “A” schedule property is being accessed.
This is a very crucial finding since the appellants are placing their
rights only on this title document.
4.The Courts below have also found that the appellants did
not recognize the dominant tenement of the respondents and
without such recognition, an easementary right cannot be claimed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
by the servient tenement. The appellants having denied the right
of the respondents in the subject property, cannot claim the right of
easement as rightly held by the Courts below. Apart from the
above said facts, there is an alternative pathway available, which
was even indicated in Ex.A1 and under such circumstances, the
appellants will not be entitled to claim an easementary right on the
ground of necessity.
5.This Court does not find any substantial question of law
involved in the present second appeal and this Court finds that both
the Courts below have properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and rendered findings, which do not require
the interference of this Court.
6.In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
02.06.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gns NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,
gns
To
1.The Sub Court, Padmanabapuram.
2.The Additional District Munsiff Court, Padmanabapuram.
S.A.(MD)No.318 of 2021
02.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!