Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendants are descendents of a common ancestor. A common pathway width about 9 feet is running towards west from the north-south street as shown in the plaint rough plan. The property of the third defendant is situated on the north of the said 9 feet pathway and the house of the defendants 1 and 2 situated on the south of the aforesaid pathway. The plaintiff's house is situated on the north of the aforesaid pathway. The persons, who are residing on the western side are using the said pathway for taking carts and cattles for several 100 years, without any objection from any one. The portions which are mentioned as MCOP and TMPQRD in the plaint rough plan were purchased by the first defendant's father under a sale deed dated 03.07.1947 from one of the co-sharers namely, Duraisamy Padaiyachi. The aforesaid properties are situated on the south of the aforesaid 9 feet, common pathway. The property of the third defendant is shown as IJFG in the plaint rough plan which is situated on the north of the aforesaid common pathway. That being so, on http://www.judis.nic.in 20.11.1984, with a view to reduce the width of the aforesaid common pathway, the defendants 1 and 2 had encroached 3 feet width of the aforesaid common pathway on the southern side and constructed a compound wall to the height of 4 feet and length of 52 feet. On the same day, the third defendant had encroached on the northern side of the aforesaid common pathway to a width of 2 feet and put up a fence.
b) It is false to state that the width of the aforesaid pathway is 9 feet. At no point of time, the width of the pathway was 9 feet. The aforesaid pathway was never used as cart track and it has been used only as pathway and even now, the plaintiff can use the said pathway without any difficulty. It is false to state that the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 82 feet north south. They are entitled to 86 feet north south. In the sale deed dated 03.06.1947. The defendants have not encroached the common pathway as alleged in the plaint and therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

19. In Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam Vs.G.Anandavally Amma and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere fact that plaint pathway was not mentioned in the settlement deed concerned was no ground to hold that there was no implied grant of schedule B property as pathway. In this case, in Ex.A1 sale deed, pathway has been mentioned but the width of the pathway has not been mentioned. Further the defendants have not denied the existence of pathway and also the plaintiff's right to use the said pathway. The dispute is only with regard to the width of the pathway. There is no http://www.judis.nic.in evidence as to what was the original width of the pathway. Therefore, the aforesaid decision also will not help the plaintiff.

20. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove that the original width of the suit pathway was 9 feet and the defendants 1 and 2 have encroached 3 feet width of the said pathway. The Courts below after considering the materials placed concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged encroachment. In the said concurrent factual findings this Court cannot interfere. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant/plaintiff.