C.Moorthy vs Sangu Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 12339 Mad

                                                                    S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 24.06.2021

                                                   CORAM:

                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                        S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009
                                                    and
                                          M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2009

                     In S.A.(MD)No.479 of 2009

                     1.C.Moorthy

                     2.Velmani                   ... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants

                                                    -Vs-


                     1.Sangu Pillai
                     2.Devakanni
                     3.S.Radhabai              .. Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 06.09.2007 passed in A.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 15.11.2005 passed in O.S.No.243 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009

For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.K.Guhan

In S.A.(MD)No.482 of 2009

Velmani ... Appellant /Appellant /Plaintiff

-Vs-

1.Sangu Pillai

2.Devakanni ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 06.09.2007 passed in A.S.No.68 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 15.11.2005 passed in O.S.No.209 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

                                          For Appellant          : Mr.M.Saravanan
                                           For Respondents       : Mr.K.Guhan
                                             COMMON JUDGMENT

These two second appeals arise out of the common judgment made

in O.S.No.209 of 2003 and O.S.No.243 of 2003 on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009

2.O.S.No.209 of 2003 was filed by the appellant Velmani against

one Sangu Pillai and Devakanni seeking the relief of permanent

injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit property is a pathway.

According to the defendants, it is a common pathway. According to the

plaintiff, it is an exclusive pathway belonging Velmani and few others.

Likewise, Sangu Pillai and two others filed O.S.No.243 of 2003 seeking

the relief of permanent injunction against one Moorthy and Deivakanni

w/o.Sangu Pillai. In the said suit also, the suit property was a pathway.

Sangu Pillai and others sought the relief of permanent injunction in

respect of the suit pathway. Both the suits were tried together. Witnesses

were examined on either side. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Likewise,

Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked. After framing the relevant issues, the trial

Court gave a Judgment that both the pathways are common pathways.

O.S.No.209 of 2003 filed by Velmani was dismissed, while O.S.No.243

of 2003 filed by Sangu Pillai and two others was decreed. The result was

that both the pathways are to be treated as common pathway and that no

party can claim any exclusive right over them. Challenging the same,

A.S.Nos.68 and 69 of 2006 were filed before the Sub Court,

Periyakulam. By Judgment and decree dated 06.09.2007, the appeals

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009

were dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeals came to be

filed.

3.Only notice was ordered and till date, it has not been admitted.

After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I come to the conclusion

that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. This is

because, in the sale deeds marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.B1, there is a clear

reference to the pathways in question. That apart, it has been admitted by

the witnesses that the local body had laid a cement road on the pathways.

There is sufficient evidence to prove the common character of the suit

pathways involved in both the suits. The Courts below have rightly held

that no party can claim any exclusive right or title over the pathway in

question.

4.In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere.

Both the second appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

24.06.2021

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rmi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009

To

1.The Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.

2.The District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

rmi

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)Nos.479 & 482 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2009

24.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/