Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff has scheduled to the plaint the above said common pathway accesses provision made under Ex.A.1 as plaint schedule property even in the cause of action column the plaintiff would state in the plaint that while the plaintiff was walking through the suit pathway on 21.1.1996 to reach the suit property, the defendants came with band of rowdies and made an attempt to prevent the plaintiff from using the suit pathway and cart-track. The above said recitals extracted above will not through any light to the fact whether there was any pathway or cart-track formed by the plaintiff with the width of 3 yards as agreed upon between the parties under Ex.A.1. To prove that such a pathway with 3 yards width is in existence the plaintiff has produced Ex.A.7 to A.9. Ex.A.7 is the plaint filed in O.S.No.651 of 1995, a suit between the D1 to D4 herein and one Kongu Vellalor Institute of Technology Trust, the vendees for a portion of the properties allotted to their father Pongianna Gounder (2) under Ex.A.2-partition deed dated 16.09.1964 entered into between Pongianna Gounder(2) and his brother Chinnathambi Gounder, under which 'A' schedule to Ex.A.2 was allotted to plaintiff;s father Pongianna Gounder(2) and 'B' schedule to Ex.A.2 was allotted to Chinnathambi Gounder. Besides scheduling 'A' schedule to Ex.A.2 as plaint schedule, the plaintiff has also inducted a provision under Ex.A.1 for easy access to their respective shares of the sharers in the properties allotted under 'A' & 'B' schedule under Ex.A.1 ie., a pathway with 3 yards width. Even under Ex.A.1 it has been clearly stated that such a pathway with 3 yards width is to be provided in future to enable the sharers under Ex.A.1 to get access to their respective shares allotted under Ex.A.1. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that only while he was walking in the said pathway on 21.1.1996, the defendants have obstructed him. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show, where the said pathway with 3 yards width was formed in the plaint schedule property. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that after Ex.A.2  partition between Pongianna Gounder(2) ie., the father of the plaintiff and his uncle Chinnathambi Gounder, the plaintiff had executed a sale deed in respect of a portion of the property allotted to the plaintiff's father under Ex.A.2, to Kongu Vellalor Institute of Technology Trust. As P.W.1, in the cross-examination, the plaintiff would admit that the vendees under him have put up fencing in the alleged pathway ie., within the property purchased in the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has not scheduled the property admittedly sold by him to the said Kongu Vellalor Institute of Technology Trust, in the plaint schedule property. There is absolutely no material placed before the trial Court to identify the property in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the said Kongu Vellalor Institute of Technology Trust after Ex.A.2  partition.