Madras High Court
V. Revathi ..3Rd Defendant / vs R.Kalyanasundaram on 25 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
SA.No.618 of 2012
and MP No.1 & 2of 2012
V. Revathi ..3rd defendant /Appellant/
Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Kalyanasundaram
Rep. By his Power of Attorney Agent,
R.Natarajan ..plaintiff /1st respondent/
1st respondent
2. Tahsildhar
Nagapattinam Taluk,
Nagapattinam.
3. The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam ..Defendants 1 & 2 /
Respondents 2 and 3 / Respondents 2 and 3
4. Safia @ Saraswathi ..4th defendant / 4th respondent/
4th respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
passed in A.S.No.2 of 2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Nagapattinam confirming the Judgment and decree dated
24.11.2006 passed in O.S.No.286 of 2000 by the learned District
Munsif, Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.Srinath Sridevan for R1
Mrs.E.Indhumathi for
R2 and R3
JUDGMENT
The 3rd defendant is the appellant in this second
appeal.
2. The 1st respondent / Plaintiff filed the suit seeking
for the relief of declaration to declare the patta granted in favour
of the defendants 3 and 4 for the B schedule property as null and
void and for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the
two huts put up in the B schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the A schedule
property belongs to him and the B schedule property is used as an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
access road to reach the A schedule property. While so, the 1st and
2nd defendants gave patta to the 3rd and 4th respondents for the B
schedule property and using the same, the 3rd and 4th defendants
have put up a hut and thereby, prevented the plaintiff from using
the approach road. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for the reliefs
stated supra.
4. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a written
statement and took a stand that the suit property was
categorized as a poramboke and it was encroached upon by many
persons. Hence, it was converted as a natham and patta was
issued to the occupiers of the property. It was further pleaded
that the plaintiff can access his property through the property in
Survey No.132/1 and the general public were permitted to use
the pathway in survey no.133/3 and it is only for the property in
Survey No.132/2, which was in the occupation of the encroaches,
patta was issued in their favour based on their possession.
Hence, the 1st and 2nd defendants took a stand that the plaintiff
has sufficient space to approach his property and he cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
question the patta issued to the occupiers in Survey No.132/2.
5. Both the Courts below on appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the
plaintiff can have access to his property only through the land
available in Survey No.133/2. A further finding was given to the
effect that the defendants 3 and 4 were never in possession of
the B schedule property and it is only after the patta was issued,
they had put up a hut. They were residing in the nearby
property. This was clearly established by the report and the
sketch filed by the Advocate Commissioner which was marked as
Ex.C1 and C2. Hence, the very basis on which the defendants 3
and 4 were claiming for patta was found to be false. That apart,
the plaintiff was also able to establish that the 3rd defendant is
living elsewhere and it was substantiated through Ex.A11
document. The 3rd and 4th defendant also did not file any
document to show that they were in possession of the B Schedule
property for more than 30 years. In view of the same, both the
Courts applied the principle that the owner of a land adjoining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the public street has got a right to access at every point where
his or her land adjoins public street. Accordingly, the relief
sought for by the plaintiff was granted.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the
findings of both the Courts below does not suffer from any
perversity and does not warrant any interference of this Court.
No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.
7. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.04.2022
Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam
2. The District Munsif, Nagapattinam
Copy To:-
The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
rka
SA.No.618 of 2012
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
