Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. In Ex.A4 which is purchased by Chandiran, the property mentioned as Paruthipattu Village Punjai S.No.314/2, in this east of 20 feet with common pathway, west of Kannapiran Vagayara south plot of Kamala and north of S.No.312. In these, four boundaries an extent of 2000 sq.ft was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis purchased. In the Ex.A5 sale deed in the name of Govindarajalu the property details stated as Paruthipattu Village Punjai S.No.314/2, in this west of 20 feet road common pathway south of plot of Nirmala cast of Ranganathan vagayara, north of S.No.312, in this 1410 sq.ft land was purchased by the Govindarajalu. Therefore, from the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., Exs A3 to A5, it is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff namely Nirmala had purchased an extent of 1390 sq.ft with a four boundary of 20 feet width common pathway. Another vendor namely Chandiran also purchased plot in S.No.314/2 Paruthipattu Village for an extent of 2000 sq.ft with a four boundary of 20 feet width common pathway. The another vendor namely Govindarajalu through Ex.A5 has purchased plot in S.No.314/2 Paruthipattu Village with an extent of 1410 sq.ft with four boundary of 20 feet width common pathway. Therefore, from the above said documents, it is clear that the plaintiff's vendor had right over the property only for an extent of 1390+1410+ 2000 sq.ft in total=4680 sq.ft. With 20 feet pathway right.

38. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have observed that the defendants being the adjacent owner and 3rd party to the property in S.No 314/2 has no right to question about the sale of the plaintiff. Thereby the defendants has no locus-standi to question about the extent of land purchased https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in S.F.No.314/2. Once the plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the property belongs to her, she has to establish her right of possession over the property. But in this case, the plaintiff has purchased the property without any title for full extent from her vendors. The plaintiff's vendors documents clearly shows the existence of pathway. Particularly the Exp.A4 the western boundary of the property mentioned as 20 feet width common pathway and the southern boundary mentioned as S.F.312 i.,e, land of defendant, in Exp.B5 the eastern boundary mentioned as 20 feet width common pathway and the southern boundary mentioned as SF.No.312 i.e., land of defendant. Therefore, from the Exp.B4 and B5 we can infer that 20 feet width pathway was in existence and it touches the land in S.F.No.312. But the Courts below also held that there was existence of pathway but their finding are that the said pathway is only private pathway not public pathway. The courts below came to the conclusion that there is a pathway mentioned in the plaintiff's vendors documents but it is not a public pathway and private pathway. However, failed to consider that the vendor of the plaintiff have no title over the entire suit property and the plaint prayer is also for an entire extent of 5470 sq.ft. The courts below are of same view that the property pathway is private pathway and the first defendant being third party no way connected with S.F.No.314 cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis question the same, but failed to consider that the plaintiff filed the suit based on sale deed Ex.A.2, and vendors of Ex.A.2 had no title for an extent of 5470sq.ft. Therefore, the above said finding of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court are not acceptable to that regard.

40. From the reading of the said judgements, it is clear that once the owner of the property set apart for formation of street, park and schools it is deemed to be for public purpose. Such a reservation has ceased the title of the owner and obligation is created upon the owner of the land in nature of trust and owner is precluded from transferring or selling his interest in it. In this case on hand also the 20 feet road was formed in the year 1987, while the property was converted into plots and the third parties also purchased plots by mentioning this 20 feet width pathway. Moreover the plaintiffs vendors had also purchased three plots respectively through separate deeds. In those sale deeds of the vendors of the plaintiff the 20 feet pathway also mentioned as four boundary. Therefore once the pathway has been created for common purpose, the vendor of the plaintiff have no transferable right for the pathway https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis as their exclusive pathway. Further the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the property with specific extent but the plaintiff got sale deed from them for excess land. Once the vendors of the plaintiff admitted the 20 feet pathway then they cannot deny the existence of pathway and they estopped. Since the plaintiff is steps into the shoes of her vendor she also estopped from denying the existence of pathway. Therefore, the plaintiff could not get the sale deed for an extent of 5470 and the sale deed itself is void document to the extent of excess land and the same has not conveyed any title in favour of the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff cannot sought for relief for entire property. Further the courts below have not discussed about the possession of the plaintiff, non examination of the plaintiff as witness, non examination of the vendors and non production of original deeds. In the suit for permanent injunction the main requirement is possession but no evidence adduced by the plaintiff for exclusive possession of entire property. Further on careful perusal of plaint prayer no specific mention about against whose possession and enjoyment injunction is prayed for. As per pleading the plaintiff's mother institution staffs are enjoying the property. Without considering these aspects the courts below have decreed the suit wrongly. The first appellate court has not stated reasons for modifying the Decree and Judgement of trial Court. Once the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appellate court comes to conclusion that the suit property is common for particular persons of owners in S.F. 312 and the first defendant has no right then how allowed the E.B officials to maintain the said E.B lines and polls. The first appellate court ought to have dismissed the entire suit. Therefore as discussed supra the plaintiff vendor without having any title over the entire property cannot legally alienate the entire property to the plaintiff. Thus the first substantial question of law is answered.