Madras High Court
R.Janarthanan vs N.Ramdoss on 24 March, 2022
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
in
S.A.(MD)No.438 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
R.Janarthanan ... Applicant / Appellant
Vs.
N.Ramdoss ... Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of
C.P.C., praying to review the order passed by this Court in S.A.(MD)No.
438 of 2013 dated 02.08.2013.
For Petitioner :Mrs.P.Jessi Jeva Priya
for Mr.G.Aravinthan
For Respondent :Mr.C.Sundaravadivel
ORDER
The applicant herein seeks review of the Judgment and decree
dated 02.08.2013 dismissing S.A.(MD)No.438 of 2013 filed by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.338 of 2006 on the file of
the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul for the relief of
declaration that the suit 'B' schedule property is a common pathway and
to restrain the defendant from interfering with the use of the same by the
plaintiff so as to have ingress and egress to the suit 'A' schedule property.
The defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the
suit. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.96 of 2011 before
the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. The first appellate court by
judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 reversed the decision of the trial
court and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed S.A.(MD)No.438 of 2013.
This Court did not find any substantial question of law arising for
consideration and confirmed the decision of the first appellate court and
dismissed the second appeal. Seeking review of the same, this review
application has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and
called upon this Court to review the judgment and decree dated
02.08.2013 dismissing S.A.(MD)No.438 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /
plaintiff submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
and pressed for dismissal of the review application.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
evidence on record.
6. The plaintiff's mother had purchased a piece of property vide
Ex.A3 dated 29.06.1981. The four boundaries has been described in
Ex.A3 as follows:-
to the west of 15 feet wide north-south pathway belonging to
the defendant, to the south of defendant's land and to the north of the
Gopalpatti Ooradi.
The house site purchased by the plaintiff's mother measured 150 feet east
-west and 250 feet north-south. It is true that the plaintiff's mother and
the defendant entered into an agreement dated 24.11.1982 regarding the
use of the pathway under Ex.A10. Ex.A10 confers pathway right to the
extent of 15 X 55 ¾ feet in the said pathway. The learned counsel
appearing for the review applicant would contend that Ex.A10 was not
properly considered while disposing of the second appeal filed by the
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
7. I am not persuaded by the said submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the review applicant. There is no dispute that the
defendant had sold the property measuring 250 feet north-south. The
eastern boundary of the suit property is the suit pathway. It is well
settled that a person owning the land adjoining a highway road is entitled
to access the same at all points where his land touches the public road or
highway. The said principle has been applied in this case. Even though
the disputed pathway is not a public road or highway, this approach
adopted by the learned Judge cannot be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record.
8. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent
that Ex.A3 which is a registered sale deed was not rectified. Ex.A10 is a
mere agreement. Therefore, the learned Judge held that Ex.A10 which is
a mere agreement regarding use of pathway cannot prevail over the rights
conferred on the purchaser under Ex.A3. One cannot say that this is an
error apparent on the face of the record. The case on hand does not fall
within the parameters set out in Order 47 of C.P.C.
9. The review application stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
24.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
Rmi
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.84 of 2013
in
S.A.(MD)No.438 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
