S.A.No.1300 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.No.1300 of 2010 1.Arul 2.R.Ayyavu @ Thangavel 3.R.Gunasekaran ... Appellants / Defendants 1 to 3 Vs. 1.P.Arulmani 2.P.Srinivasaraghavan 3.K.K.Ramalingam 4.C.Ganapathi 5.N.Karunambigai ... Respondents / plaintiffs 1 to 5 6.The President, Koonavelampatty Panchayat, Koonavelampatty, Pudur, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. 7.The District Collector, Namakkal District. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 8.The Block Development Officer, Rasipuram Block, Attur Main Road, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 9.The Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. ... Respondents / Defendants 4 to 7 Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, made in A.S.No.128 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006, made in O.S.No.69 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliayappan for R1 & R3 Ms.R.Revathy for R8 Mr.G.Ameedius, GA for R7 & R9 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, made in A.S.No.128 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006, made in O.S.No.69 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 2. On 19.06.2025, this Court has directed the 8th respondent to file a report about the present status with respect to the suit pathway which was classified as grama natham poramboke. A report had been filed by the 8th respondent enclosing the extract of the adangal and the field maps. In the report, it had been stated that the suit land in S.No.135/2-149 is classified as natham poramboke street in 'A' register, Koonavelempatti Village at Rasipuram Block, Namakkal District. 3. In the order dated 16.12.2022, the learned counsel for the appellants had stated that the appellants had taken back the bundle. But, it is obvious that the suit had been filed with respect to the land which actually is a natham poramboke street which has to be used in common by every body in the Village. Even on 16.12.2022, the learned counsel for the appellants had stated that he had given change of vakalat along with the back bundle to his clients / appellants herein. A memo was also filed. Therefore, the Registry was directed to issue notice to the appellants directly returnable by 09.01.2023. It is clear that the appellants got the knowledge that the suit property is classified as natham poramboke street and had taken away the bundle from the learned counsel for the appellants. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 4. The appellants are the defendants 1,2, and 3 in O.S.No.69 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. The said suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property, particularly, laying a pipe line. Such relief can never by granted. The learned District Munsif, Rasipuram by judgment dated 31.08.2006 had dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed A.S.No.128 of 2008 which came up for consideration before the Sub-Court, Rasipuram. The learned Sub Judge had allowed the Appeal Suit and had decreed the suit. This has necessitated the defendants 1,2 and 3 to file the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents 1 to 5 / plaintiffs is not perverse and resulted in misreading of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and D.W.1 to D.W.3 and erroneous appreciation of the extent of the right conveyed through documents marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A11 to Ex.A14? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing without any discussion and assigning valid reason the findings of the trial court to the effect that the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 respondents 1 to 5 herein / plaintiffs failed to prove their case for claiming exclusive right of passage through the suit path way by producing any documentary evidence? 3.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in placing the burden on the appellants / defendants 1 to 3 and in particular defendants 4 to 7 representing Local Body / Revenue Department to prove that the suit pathway is situated in natham poramboke and no one is having any exclusive right of passage over the same? 4.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the suit filed in individual capacity without obtaining permission of the Court by the respondents 1 to 5 herein / plaintiffs claiming common interest in the suit pathway along with their community people maintainable?" 5. All the substantial questions of law as mentioned above have now become redundant owing to the fact that the eight respondent / Block Development Officer, Rasipuram Panchayat Union, Rasipuram, Namakkal District, had given a very clear and categorical report that the land in S.No.135/2-149 is mentioned in the revenue record as natham poramboke street in 'A' Register, Koonavelempatti Village at Rasipuram Block, Namakkal District. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 6. Thus, the suit has been filed over the property for which no declaration can be granted and no injunction can be granted. The property has to be used commonly by everybody. The First Appellate Court has misdirected itself in analysing the nature of the land. The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit cannot be granted. Hence, this Second Appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 05.02.2010 made in A.S.No.128 of 2008 is set aside. The dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is confirmed. No costs. Speaking order / Non-speaking order 11.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram. 2.The District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1300 of 2010 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J. gsk S.A.No.1300 of 2010 11.07.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis