Madras High Court
A.Murugesan vs K.Shanthi ... 1St on 20 January, 2025
2025:MHC:172
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19 / 10 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20 / 01 / 2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A.NOS.154 AND 155 OF 2018
AND
CMP NO.4863 OF 2018 IN S.A.NO.154 OF 2018
AND
CMP NO.4864 OF 2018 IN S.A.NO.155 OF 2018
S.A.NO.154 OF 2018
1.A.Murugesan
2.M.Pushpavathi ... Appellants /
Respondents 1 & 2 /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.K.Shanthi ... 1st Respondent /
Appellant /
6th Defendant
2.Chinnammal
3.Palanisamy
Govindaraj (Died)
4.Dhanabakkiyam
5.P.J.Sridhar
6.K.C.Jayamani
7.Minor K.G.Manikandapirabhu ... Respondents /
Respondents 3 to 9 /
Defendants 1 to 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated June
20, 2011 made in A.S.No.135 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge,
Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated November 29, 2007
made in O.S.No.43 of 2005 by the Principal District Munsif, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.V.S.Kesavan
For Respondent-1 : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents 2 to 7 : Given up
S.A.NO.155 OF 2018
1.A.Murugesan
2.M.Pushpavathi ... Appellants /
Respondents /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
T.Sugumar ... Respondent /
Appellant /
Defendant
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated June
20, 2011 made in A.S.No.96 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge,
Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated November 29, 2007
made in O.S.No.501 of 2005 by the Principal District Munsif, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.V.S.Kesavan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal in S.A.No.154 of 2018 is directed against
the Judgment and Decree dated June 20, 2011 passed in A.S.No.135 of
2008 by the 'Principal District Court, Erode' ['First Appellate Court' for
brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated November 29, 2007
passed in O.S.No.43 of 2005 by the 'Principal District Munsif Court,
Erode' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.
2. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.155 of 2018 is directed
against the Judgment and Decree dated June 20, 2011 passed in
A.S.No.96 of 2008 by the First Appellate Court, whereby the Judgment
and Decree dated November 29, 2007 passed in O.S.No.501 of 2005 by
the Trial Court was reversed.
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit in O.S.No.43 of 2005.
4. The following diagram is drawn based on the evidence
available on record for better understanding of facts of the case:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
2. In both the Original Suits, the Suit Properties remain
substantially the same. The portions marked as ‘A’ to ‘C’ in the above
diagram constitutes the Suit 'A' Schedule properties in both the Original
Suits. The North-South Lane shown constitutes Suit 'B' Schedule property
in both the Original Suits; but its measurement varies. In O.S.No.43 of
2005, contrary to the recitals contained in Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
plaintiffs have described the Suit North-South Lane as if it is measuring
3.5 feet in width. It measures only 2 feet in width as per Ex-A.1 to Ex-
A.6, which contain the Sale Deeds and the Gift Settlement Deeds relating
to the Suit Property as stated infra. In O.S.No.501 of 2005, the width of
the said North-South Lane Path has been described as 2 feet, which is in
line with the recitals of Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6.
3. The dispute between the parties is with regard to North-
South Lane shown in the above diagram, which constitutes Suit 'B'
Schedule property in both the Suits. The parties dispute its nature and
measurements. Case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants encroached the
Suit North-South Lane and constructed a compound wall and a toilet
therein. In O.S.No.43 of 2005, the plaintiffs seek to declare their right,
title and interest in the Suit North-South Lane (3.5 feet in width) and
remove the encroachments of the defendants therein by way of a
mandatory injunction. Plaint prayer in O.S.No.43 of 2005 reads thus:
'a) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, servants, heirs, representatives, agents whomsoever
under them and through from interfering into and disturbing
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule
property either actually or by referring the alleged right of the
way in the original lane set out in 'B' schedule now merged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
with suit 'A' schedule property and with property of the
defendants by in any made of executing deeds of conveyance
etc.
b) Declaring the rights, title, interest of the plaintiffs
over the 'B' schedule property;
c) Mandatory injunction fixing the boundaries of the
'B' schedule lane by removing the superstructure of compound
wall and latrines etc. built up by the defendants 1 to 4 for the
congenial joint common user of the same forever;
d) Awarding the costs of the suit; and
e) Granting such other and further reliefs as the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case and thereby render justice.”
3.1. In O.S.No.501 of 2005, since the defendants executed a
General Power of Attorney in respect of Suit North-South Lane Path in
favour of one T.Sugumar, the plaintiff seeks for the relief of permanent
injunction against the power holder restraining him from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit North-South Lane by
the plaintiffs. Plaint prayer in O.S.No.501 of 2005 reads thus:
“a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant,
his men servants, heirs, representatives agents whomsoever
under him and through him from interfering into and
disturbing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
- Schedule property either actually or by referring the alleged
right of the way in the original lane set out in B- Schedule now
merged with suit A - Schedule property and with property of
Chinnammal by the alleged Power of Attorney dated May 11,
2005, S.R.O.Bhavani allegedly executed by Chinnammal
Vahayara in favour of the defendant in any mode of
encumbering and alienating deeds of conveyances etc.,;
b) Awarding the costs of the suit; and
c) Granting such other and further reliefs as the Hon'
ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case and thereby render justice.”
4. It is averred in the written statement filed by the first
defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2005 that the Suit filed by the plaintiffs is
frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable, either in law or on the facts of
the case. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of all allegations, except
those specifically admitted. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim of
exclusive ownership of the 2-foot lane in question, asserting that it has
always been a common lane used by both parties and their predecessors.
The Sale Deeds and other documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are self-
serving and do not confer any valid title to them. The defendants denied
the claim that the lane has been exclusively used by the plaintiffs since
1964 or that any agreement was made regarding its division or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
appropriation. Further, the defendants refuted the allegations with regard
to the panchayat and subsequent developments to the lane. The
defendants stated that their property was purchased in 1970. The plaintiffs
have no exclusive right or title over the lane, which has been commonly
used for decades. The defendants further challenges the valuation of the
Suit, alleging it has been intentionally undervalued to evade proper Court-
fees. According to the defendants, they have not encorached upon the Suit
Property and it is the plaintiffs who have encroached upon it. Moreover,
the suit has been filed with malafide intention to harass the defendants
and establish a false claim over the lane. As there is no genuine cause of
action, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the Suit with costs.
5.The defendant in O.S.No.501 of 2005 filed written
statement stating that the Suit filed by the plaintiffs is baseless, legally
unsustainable and intended to harass the defendant. The claim of
exclusive ownership over the 2-feet pathway is denied, as it is a public
lane used by all parties. The defendant is only an authorized agent under a
General Power of Attorney dated May 11, 2005 and has no personal
ownership, as the property belongs to Annamalai, who has not been made
as a party to the Suit. Without impleading Annamalai or filing necessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
documents like power of attorney, the plaintiffs' claims cannot be
sustained. Therefore, the defendant claimed that Suit lacks merit and
accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Suit with costs.
5.1.The case of the defendants in both the Original Suits in
short is that they did not encroach upon Suit North-South Lane, which is a
common lane. On the other hand, it is the plaintiffs who have encroached
the Suit North-South Lane. Further, the Suit is barred by limitation as
even according to the plaintiffs, the alleged encroachment was made in
the year 1982 whereas the Suit is laid in the year 2005.
6. The Trial Court upon perusal of the evidence and after
hearing either side, decreed the Suit in O.S.No.43 of 2005 declaring that
the plaintiffs have title over the Suit North-South Lane and granted
permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of Suit Properties.
7. Likewise, in O.S.No.501 of 2005, the Trial Court directed
the defendant therein not to sell or transfer the disputed property based on
the Power of Attorney dated May 11, 2005.
8. Upon appeal before the First Appellate Court by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
aggrieved defendants, the First Appellate Court found that there is no
evidence available on record to show when the encroachments were made
and since for mandatory injunction, the period of limitation is 3 years, the
Suit is barred by limitation. Upon these findings, the Appeal Suits were
allowed and the Original Suits were dismissed by setting aside the
Common Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court.
9. Aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree of the
First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have come up with these Second
Appeals, which were admitted by this Court on March 13, 2024 on the
following Substantial Questions of Law:
'S.A.NO.154 OF 2018
a. Whether the Lower Appellate Court completely missed the vital
fact that the suit lane is in existence or not?
b. Whether the decree and judgment of the Appellate Court below
are pervasive in nature because they categorically missed the
vital facts of the case and warranting interference of this
Hon'ble Court?
S.A.NO.155 OF 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
a. Whether the Lower Appellate Court completely missed the vital
fact that the present suit is for bare injunction and defendant
admitted he has no title or right over the suit property?
b. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in giving a common
judgment without discussing the issues in the above suit
separately?
c. Whether the Lower Appellate Court below properly perused the
reports of the Advocate Commissioner and plan of the Surveyor? '
10. Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned Counsel for the appellants /
plaintiffs would argue that the recitals in Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6 documents
clearly prove the existence of the Suit lane. Further, Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.5 –
Report and Plan of the Advocate Commissioner would prove the
encroachment made by the defendants in the Suit 'B' Schedule property.
The learned Counsel for the appellants would further argue that there
exists east-west lane between the plaintiffs' property and the defendants'
property (Between the properties covered under Ex-A.3 – Sale Deed and
that covered under Ex-A.6 – Sale Deed) and there exists some dispute
between the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the same. The
plaintiffs reserve their right to initiate action. The dispute between the
plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to east-west lane is not the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
subject matter of these Second Appeals. the The Trial Court rightly
appreciated the evidence and decreed the Original Suits. The First
Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in
the right perspective and dismissed the Original Suits. The same is
perverse. Accordingly, he would pray to allow these Second Appeals, set
aside the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court and confirm
those of the Trial Court.
11. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned Counsel for the respondents /
defendants would argue that the Advocate-Commissioner's Reports and
Plan in Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.5 did not specify the encroachment. The
Advocate-Commissioner failed to note down the encroachment made by
the plaintiffs. Hence, the reports of the Advocate – Commissioner in Ex-
C.1 to Ex-C.5 cannot be accepted. He would further argue that the
defendants in O.S.No.43 of 2005 put up construction 20 years before.
Hence, the prayer for a mandatory injunction is barred by limitation, as
the plaintiffs have acquiesced in the act of alleged encroachment. The
First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and
set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing
the Original Suits. There is no reason to interfere with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss these Second Appeals. He would
rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krothapalli
Satyanarayana -vs- Koganti Ramaiah and Others, reported in (1984) 2
SCC 439.
12. Heard on either side. Perused the materials available on
record.
13. The portions marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the above diagram
were purchased by second plaintiff by virtue of Ex-A.1 - Registered Sale
Deed dated September 14, 1985. Then she executed Ex-A.2 - Registered
Gift Settlement Deed dated July 11, 1991 in favour of her husband / first
plaintiff in respect of the portion marked as ‘B’ in the above diagram.
The mother of first plaintiff purchased the house site marked as ‘C’ in the
above diagram vide Ex-A.3 - Registered Sale Deed dated July 22, 1964
and the same has been later settled in favour of first plaintiff under a
registered Gift Settlement Deed dated April 24, 2002. The house property
marked as ‘D’ in the above diagram was purchased by the first defendant
under Ex-A.6 - Sale Deed dated December 11, 1970. There is a lane of 2
feet width running North-South in-between the said portions as shown in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
the above diagram.
14. In Ex-A.1 and Ex-A.2, the western boundary of the
portions marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the above diagram is described as ‘2 feet
North-South Lane Path’ [. . . 2 mo mfy bjd;tly; re;J jlj;Jf;F
(fpHf;F) . . . ]. Likewise, in Ex-A.3 to Ex-A.6, the eastern boundary of
the portions marked as 'C' and 'D' in the above diagram has also been
described as ‘2 feet North-South Lane Path’ [. . . E.K. ,uhkrhkpft[z;lh;
tifawh (Vendor) ,uz;lo mfyj;jpy; tpl;oUf;Fk; bjd;tly; re;Jf;F
(nkw;F) ]. To be noted, Ex-A.5 is the Title Deed of the vendor of the first
defendant while Ex-A.4 is the Title Deed of the vendor of the first
defendant’s vendor. The Advocate Commissioner filed Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.5 –
Reports and Plans which shows the existence of a North-South Lane
location of which is as shown in the above diagram. Further, in Ex-A.1 to
Ex-A.6, it has been stated that the portions marked as 'A' to 'D' comes
with easementary right over the roads running on all four side of the
layout consisting of portions marked as 'A' to 'D', as well as the 2 feet
North-South Lane Path. It has been further stated that none comes with
right over Soil in the said roads and the lane path. To put it differently, the
surrounding roads and the North-South Lane are meant for common use
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
to the owners of the portions marked as 'A' to 'D'. The facts narrated
supra are completely based on evidence available on record. It is apposite
to state the recitals found in Ex-A.3 to Ex-A.6 hereunder:
Recitals found in Ex-A.3
'. . . i# ,lj;Jf;F v';fshy; tplg;gl;oUf;Fk;
mfykhd nuhLfspYk;/ re;J jlj;jpYk; ele;J
bfhs;s ntz;oaJ. . . '
Recitals found in Ex-A.4 to Ex-A.6
'. . . i# ,lj;Jf;F E.K.,uhkrhkpft[z;lh;
tifawhf;fshy; tplg;gl;oUf;Fk; mfykhd
nuhLfspYk;/ re;JfspYk; ngha;te;J bfhs;Sk;
jlghj;jpaKk; rfpjKk; . . . '
15. Thus, it is clear that Suit North-South Lane is a common
2 feet lane over which neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants can claim
absolute title. All they have is easementary right to enjoy it as a pathway.
Hence, the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.43 of 2005 have no authority or
power to execute Ex-A.22 – General Power of Attorney Deed dated May
11, 2005 (Document NO.232/2005/Book-4, SRO Bhavani). Therefore, the
said document is void ab initio. Consequently, the alleged General Power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
Attorney Agent - T.Sukumar will not get any right through Ex-A.22.
Perusal of evidence does not reveal a clear picture about the alleged
encroachments made by either side. A lane should only be used as a lane
and hence, any encroachments thereof are liable to be removed. If any
encroachment is made over the Suit North-South Lane, the affected party
is entitled to remove the same as per law.
16. The Trial Court erred in granting declaration of title over
the Suit North-South Lane in favour of plaintiffs, while it is actually a
common lane over which both the plaintiffs and the defendants have
easementary right. The Suit lane was formed by the original owners for
accessing their other properties and for usage as pathway by the
purchasers of the properties in the layout. The First Appellate Court erred
in dismissing the Appeal Suits on the ground that the Suit for mandatory
injunction is barred by limitation. This Court is of the view that Suits
relating to encroachment on pathways have recurring cause of action and
hence, they are not barred under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Substantial Questions of Law are answered accordingly.
17. Resultantly, Second Appeal in S.A.No.154 of 2018 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
partly allowed and the Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court in
A.S.No.135 of 2008 are set aside, and the Judgment and Decree of the
Trial Court in O.S.No.43 of 2005 are modified as hereunder:
17.1. Permanent injunction is granted in respect of Suit 'A'
Schedule properties subject to measurements stated in Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.3;
17.2. It is declared that the Suit North-South Lane is a
common lane of 2 feet width. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants can
claim title over the Suit lane. The plaintiffs and the defendants are having
easementary right only over the Suit Lane. Both parties are not entitled to
put up any construction or encroach upon the Suit lane;
17.3. The boundaries of the Suit lane shall be demarcated /
fixed as per Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6. If there are any encroachments found after
fixation of boundaries, the parties are entitled to remove the
encroachments as per law.
18. As far as the Second Appeal in S.A.No.155 of 2018 is
concerned, the Second Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Decree of
the First Appellate Court are set aside and those of the Trial Court are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
modified as hereunder:
18.1. Permanent injunction is granted against the respondent
in S.A.No.155 of 2018 – T.Sugumar (Defendant in O.S.No.501 of 2005)
restraining him from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment
of the Suit Properties, measurements of which are to be taken as in Ex-
A.1 to Ex-A.3. Further, he is restrained from encumbering or alienating
the Suit 'B' Schedule property based on the General Power of Attorney
Deed dated May 11, 2005 registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Bhavani.
19. There shall be no order as to costs in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20 / 01 / 2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
To
1.The Principal District Judge
Erode.
2.The Principal District Munsif
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 20
S.A.Nos.154 & 155 of 2018
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NOS.154 AND 155 OF 2018
20 / 01 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 20
