Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The case of the defendants as found in the written statement filed by the 5th defendant would be as follows:-

The defendants 1 and 2 have no right to sell the property as their own. The property is a common ancestral family property. It is true that the property has been purchased by the plaintiffs as a house plot and after purchase, they constructed a terraced house in the western portion and another terraced house in the eastern portion. It is not true to say that the plaintiffs are using the six feet way, which runs East-West in between Paramanar Koil property and the defendants' property. The defendants' house is situated on the southern side of the six feet access to the length of 10 feet thatched house and 10 feet open verandah without wall, totally 20 feet length. At the time of constructing a thatched house, he has left 3 feet width on the northern side abutting the pathway for his personal use to stop his cycles and to keep his fuel wood by the side of the defendants' house. While the people, who are getting water from the Well and to go to the temple house, have used the six feet width pathway and the defendant has not raised any objections. The temple and the Well were absolutely, belonged to the defendants' family. The plaintiffs were also permitted to use the six feet as others, but not having any statutory right to claim six feet width for their thorough access. Out of six feet way, the defendants have left some space by the side of their house roof to repair their house and wall. Only three feet width has been left for the purpose of the people, coming to the Well and the Temple. At the time of disposing the property, the said Chinnathayee has mentioned in her document that the boundaries on the northern side as six feet width way. The first plaintiff, who is the Secretary of the Milk Society in which this defendant is working as Milk Salesman, had enmity and grudge upon this defendant, as this defendant has raised some objection and questioned about the first plaintiff's misappropriation. The defendant also filed a suit before this Court in O.S.No.327 of 2003 for the relief of mandatory injunction and to remove the unlawful encroachments. The suit was therefore vexatiously filed and the same may be dismissed.

14. We have to see, what would be the mamool pathway means ? , whether it is the suit pathway as detailed in Ex.A6 or the pathway as mentioned in Commissioner's plans Exs.C2 and C3. For that, when we analyse Ex.A7, a document executed in favour of one Palaniammal by one Chinnathayee, it has been referred to on its northern side, a pathway measuring a width of six feet. The said property was originally belonging to the defendants' family and the same was sold by the defendants in favour of one Chinnathayee through Ex.B1. In Ex.B1 sale deed, the entire property sold in Ex.A7 was described as located on the southern side of Perumanar Koil. Therefore, I could see that on the date of Ex.B1, the property was belonging to the defendants' family and it was conveyed to Chinnathayee and thereafter, it was also transferred to Palaniammal after giving away six feet breadth of pathway on the northern portion of the said property. No doubt, the said northern part of the suit property was given as suit pathway, which would show that the suit pathway was branching from the plaintiffs' property towards the Street. It is a categorical admission of DW.1 that the properties of the plaintiffs were having a mamool pathway. He would further admit that he has no objection for the plaintiffs to use the suit pathway to the width of two feet for reaching the street. When he himself has admitted that the suit pathway can be utilised by the plaintiffs for an extent of two feet breadth only, it cannot be argued that the alternative pathway on the southern side of the defendants and Palaniammal's property, which runs to reach the road from the plaintiffs' property. It has been insisted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that DW.1 had not only admitted that the plaintiffs can use the suit pathway for an extent of two feet breadth, but also given his admission that the mamool pathway as referred to in Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds, was the suit property. On a careful perusal of the evidence given by DW.1, I could see that DW.1 had categorically admitted that the mamool pathway mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2 was the suit pathway. There is no second thought that the suit pathway was not to a breadth of six feet. It has been categorically described as 'ABCD' in the plaint sketch marked as Ex.A6. Therefore, the admission given by DW.1 in his evidence would be with reference to 'ABCD' pathway only as mentioned in Ex.A6.