Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The case of the plaintiff is that the properties comprised in T.S.No.887/2 falling within the Tirupur Municipality limits belonged to the 3rd defendant and his son. They had formed a layout in the suit property and the same has been approved by the Town Planning https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Authority. A 30 feet wide road is shown in the Plan and considering the fact that the layout has been approved, the road becomes a public road accessible to the general public. She would further contend that the 1st and 2nd defendants had purchased the plots which were situate at the Western end of the layout on either side of the road, i.e., on its North and South.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

14.Mr.P.B.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that D.W.1 in her evidence had admitted that the property in question was a common layout which was the access to the common road. He would further argue that the plaintiff had discharged her duty by pleading about the layout details and the 3rd defendant who had promoted the layout has deliberately not filed the same into Court. He would further submit that there is no dispute between the parties that the road in question, namely, the suit property was a layout road. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that once a layout has been approved then all the roads situate therein would become a public road and the general public would have access to the same. He would further draw the attention of this Court to the Written Statement of the 1st defendant wherein the 1st defendant has sought to argue that if a road is formed in the layout it would only be for the benefits of the owners of the layout. He would also highlight the statement of the 3rd defendant wherein the 3rd defendant had admitted that the layout had been approved by the Deputy Director of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the Town Planning Authority, but had very ingeniously contended that since the road had not been gifted to the Tirupur Municipality the roads would remain a private road not accessible to the general public but only to the owners of the layout.

21.The suit road has been described as an East - West road situate in the layout formed in T.S.No.887/2 approved in L.P./R(CPN) No.298/86 of Deputy Director of Town Planning Coimbatore and running between several plots of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and

2. A perusal of the schedule would indicate that the plaintiff is seeking a right to access the East - West Road which is running through the layout with particular reference to the same lying between the 1st and the 2nd defendant's plots. The plaintiff would base this right on the premise that since the layout in T.S.No.887 has been approved and layout formed as per the Municipalities Act all roads and the common https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ places would vest with the Municipality and the entire public has got a right to use such a road. The suit is not filed in a representative capacity. That apart, there is no plea of an easementary right. This may be on account of the fact that on the Northen Side of the plaintiff's property there lies a 30 feet toad and therefore, an easement of necessity would not arise. The document under which the plaintiff has purchased the properties would show the property of the 2nd defendant on the East. Even under the Sale Deed Ex.A.1 the boundary is not the road.