Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.Perumal Thevar vs D.Palaniachiammal @ Palaniammal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3341 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3341 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2022

Madras High Court
S.Perumal Thevar vs D.Palaniachiammal @ Palaniammal on 22 February, 2022
                                                                                   S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 22.02.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                                S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010
                                                         and
                                                 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010


                   S.Perumal Thevar                              ... Plaintiff / Appellant / Appellant

                                                         -Vs-


                   D.Palaniachiammal @ Palaniammal                 ... Defendant / Respodnent /
                                                                              Respondent

                   PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, against the decree and judgment of the leanred Additional Sub
                   Court, Tirunelveli, dated 22.07.2009 in A.S.No.22 of 2009 confirming the
                   decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif Court,
                   Tirunelveli dated 02.02.2009 in O.S.No.31 of 2007.


                                         For Appellant          : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
                                         For Respondent         : Mr.S.Saji Bino
                                                                 for Mr.R.Appavu Rethinam
                                                      JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif, Tirunelveli is the appellant in this second appeal.

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

S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010

2. The said suit was filed for declaration that the second schedule

property is a common lane and for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from constructing any wall across the same. The defendant filed

written statement denying the allegation that she proposed to put up any

wall across the suit second schedule property. The defendant also took a

stand that suit second schedule property was never a common lane. Based

on the rival pleadings, as many as three issues were framed. The primary

issue was whether the suit second schedule property is a common lane. On

the side of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined. Ex.A1 to Ex.A17

were marked. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and one

Isakkithevar was examined as D.W.2. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. An

advocate commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were marked

as court exhibit 1 and 2. After consideration of the evidence on record, the

trial court by judgment and decree dated 02.02.2009 dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.22 of 2009 before the

Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. By the impugned judgment and decree

dated 22.07.2009, the first appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial

court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the second appeal

came to be filed.

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

S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010

3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am satisfied that

the courts below have correctly answered the issue raised by the plaintiff.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that the suit second schedule

property was ever treated as a common lane. Be that as it may, the learned

counsel for the appellant pointed out that only through the suit second

schedule property, he can reach his house. In fact, the report of the

advocate commissioner also more or less supports the said stand. The

courts below have also pointed out that the defendant has not raised any

objection to the commissioner's report. But then, the plaintiff must have

filed a suit claiming easement of necessity. He should not have sought the

relief of declaration that the suit second schedule property is a common

lane. When the suit second schedule property is a common lane, the

members of the general public can also access the same. If the plaintiff had

sought the relief only for himself, the issue would have been differently

framed. Therefore, even while confirming the decision of the courts below

and dismissing the second appeal, liberty is granted to the appellant herein

to file a fresh suit claiming the relief of easement of necessity.

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

S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

rmi

4. The second appeal is dismissed. No cost. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.02.2022

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rmi

To

1.The Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

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

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.120 of 2010

22.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter