Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
44. Once the pathway is created, the same has to be used for that purpose only. In this context the trial court has discussed about the judgements in (1) 2007 (4) CTC 679 5 MLJ 243 in T.Gnanamani Ammal vs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The Avaniyapuram Town Panchayat and (2) Ammani vs The Tiruchengode Municipality and the trial court interpreted the said judgement that in this case there are unapproved layouts and not handed over the municipaltiy thereby not applicable but the trial Court failed to note the ratio decidenti is once the property allotted for public purpose the same have to be used for that purpose only and here also the pathway 20 feet road was formed for the plots holders and the said plots were also sold to various persons with 20 feet pathway for common purpose thereby the surrender of pathway to Municipality and approved plots or unapproved plots are immaterial. In the case of hand even the plots are unapproved the intention of forming pathway i.e., 20 feet road is to reach the plot holders from their respective plots to the main road. The original owners who converted the plots alone created and formed this 20 feet road for access from main road to all plots. Therefore whether the said road was given by Government and whether it is approved or unapproved layouts are immaterial and the purpose to form a road alone has to be taken into account. The plaintiff being adjacent land owner also claiming the pathway and thereby he cannot be stranger and thereby title of the property has to be decided. Whileso, specific prayer has to be sought for declaration. Therefore the said case laws are squarely applicable to the present https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis facts of the case and the trial Court failed to apply the correct proposition of law. Further the defendants have produced the municipal records and they show the existence of pathway. Though DW.2 stated that he does not know whether the pathway was handed over to municipality, the documents Exs.XI. and X2 shows the existence of pathway. The plaintiff did not question the above municipality records. Therefore the first defendant cannot be treated as third party since they are claiming right of pathway over the property being adjacent owner of the said property. But the trial Court and the first appellate Court admitted the existence of pathway but their findings are the defendants being third party cannot question the title of the plaintiff and also the first appellate Court discussed about the easementary right and the first defendants failed to plead his easementary right and the defendants have not filed suit for declaration with regard to the path way.