Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The defendants filed written statement and stated that Schedule II property is not a common pathway. It is a 'Nilaviyal Odai' (epytpay; Xil) and patta has been issued to one Kurumbala Mudaliar, the father of the defendants. The plaintiffs never used Schedule II property as pathway. The plaintiffs have pathway only on the northern and southern side of their respective properties. The plaintiffs without having any title are claiming the right over the Schedule II property as a common pathway. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule II property for more than 40 years and therefore, they have title over the said property.

(iii) The plaintiffs filed reply statement and denied that they are using only on the northern and southern side of their respective properties. The defendants are not in exclusive possession of Schedule II property and it is only a 'Nilaviyal Odai' (epytpay; Xil).

5. The learned District Munsif, Senkottai, framed necessary issues.

6. Before the Trial Court, the second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Vanniyaperumal, Village Administrative Officer, was examined as P.W.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and one Mariappan, neighbour of the defendants was examined as D.W.2 and one G.Ramamoorthy was examined as D.W.3 and five documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.5. The Commissioner filed his report along with the sketch. These documents were marked as Court documents i.e., Exs.C1 and C2.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Exs.A.2 to A.5-sale deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are not binding on the defendants, as they are not parties to the said documents. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the term 'gpyhj;' is road. In fact, 'gpyhj;' means 'Nilaviyal Odai'. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs have no title or right to use suit schedule property given to them in the said document. The Schedule II property is only 'Nilaviyal Odai' and patta has been issued to Kurumbala Mudaliar, the father of the defendants. The defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 40 years.

15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Exs.A.2 to A.5 were executed by the ancestors of the defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to deposition of D.Ws.1 and 2, wherein it is admitted that Exs.A.2 to A.5 were executed by the ancestors and family members of the defendants. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the case.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also submitted that all the four properties are purchased from the family members of the appellants/defendants and that was admitted by D.W.1 in the deposition. Now, he cannot contend that it is not inter party document. All the documents relating to the year 1946. Originally, Schedule II property was 'Nilaviyal Odai' and subsequently, it became as pathway, being used by all the public. It is not correct to state that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 40 years and they have not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim. The Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the property filed his report and sketch, which were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. He has stated that Schedule II property is a pathway and some obstructions are made in a portion of the property. There is no classification as patta pathway in the revenue records. There will be either public pathway or private pathway. D.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer stated that it is not correct to state that the defendants got patta and are enjoying the same. D.W.2 also stated that 'B' Memo was issued after filing of the suit and prayed for dismissal of the second appeal.