Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.Whether the judgments of the Courts below are justified in enlarging the width of the pathway for taking lorry, tractor, etc., when specific right was given for taking cattle, foot pathway for men to walk in the partition deed document, Exhibit A-1 dated 27.03.1931 and Exhibit A-2 dated 29.6.1961?

6.The dispute between the parties is only as regards the pathway. In fact, the dispute is only as regards width of the pathway as such, therefore, it is found that the dispute between the parties as regards the pathway in dispute involves only the appreciation of the facts and not on any question of law as sought to be made out by the appellant.

7.From the materials placed on record, it is found that five sharers, whose names are also not necessary to be divulged entered into a partition deed dated 27.03.1939 marked as Ex.A1 and in the abovesaid partition deed, it is found that out of the extent of 19.86 acres in S.F.No.248, 9.93 acres on the southern side of the same had been allotted to Kuppanna Gouner, which is also shown as one of the items of the B schedule in the abovesaid partition deed. The abovesaid facts are not in dispute.

http://www.judis.nic.in

8.On a perusal of the said partition deed, there is a clear recital that under the said partition deed, 3 muzham pathway has been provided to all the sharers on the eastern side of S.F.No.248 mainly for the purpose of gaining access to their respective properties. Accordingly, it is found that Kuppanna Gounder, who had been allotted an extent of 9.93 acres on the southern side in S.F.No.248 was also having and exercising the right of pathway on the eastern side with a width of 3 Muzham. It is not in dispute that Kuppannan Gounder's two sons namely, Kuppusamy Gounder and Nachimuthu Gounder had partitioned the properties by way of a partition deed dated 29.06.1961 marked as Ex.A2 and on a perusal of Ex.A2 partition deed, it is found that Nachimuthu Gounder was allotted 7.73 acres on the northern side in S.F.No.248 and Kuppusamy Gounder was allotted 2 acres on the southern side and even the above facts are not in dispute.

10.In the light of the abovesaid admitted facts and in particular, when Exs.A1 & A2 partition deeds had clearly provided for 3 muzham and 4 muzham pathways for the sharers to gain access to their respective properties and the pathway abovenoted are only earmarked for serving their agricultural needs, in such view of the matter, though in Ex.A1 partition deed, the 3 muzham was earmarked only for taking cattle etc., however, when the pathway under Exs.A1 & A2 are earmarked and intended only for the sharers to carry on their agricultural operations in the various shares allotted to them and accordingly, the width of the pathway also further extended to 4 muzham under Ex.A2 partition deed, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are totally justified in holding that the first defendant is entitled to take cart, tractor, lorry, etc., through the said pathway for the purpose of carrying out his agricultural activities and merely because, no specific mention has been made in the above partition deeds about taking of carts, lorries, tractors, etc., that by itself would not in any manner hinder the first defendant in taking the same through the pathway above pointed out and as rightly pointed out by the Courts below merely because the advocate commissioner, who had inspected the properties, had not noted the signs of wheel marks in http://www.judis.nic.in the pathway, that alone would not disentitle the first defendant from taking the lorries, carts, tractors in the abovesaid pathway and as abovenoted, when the pathway had been earmarked for the purpose of engaging in the agricultural activities. When the first defendant's father had admittedly acquired the property from Kuppusamy under Ex.B1 sale traction and when there is a reference about the entitlement of the first defendant's father to use the pathway already in existence and when the pathway as abovenoted i.e. 3 muzham pathway and 4 muzham pathway had been specifically earmarked under Exs.A1 & A2 partition deeds, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be totally justified in granting the relief of easementary right as determined by them in favour of the first defendant for enabling him to use 7 muzham pathway in S.F.No.248 and the determination of the Courts below that the first defendant is entitled to take carts, lorries, tractors etc., as well as the cattle etc., through the said pathway and he is not liable to be disturbed by the plaintiff and others in any manner do not warrant interference in any manner and accordingly, the Courts below are found to have rightly decreed the suit laid by the first defendant in O.S.No.218 of 1998 and accordingly, negatived the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 1997.