JUDGMENT : P. VADAMALAI, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam partly reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2007 made in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. 3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction restraining from putting any construction affecting the plaintiff’s right of pathway to the suit property and for removing the construction shown as item No.2 in the description of property. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. 5. Case of the plaintiff: The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the 1st item of suit property measuring 2520 sq.ft vacant site and compound wall situated on the southern side to the extent of 37 ¼ feet with 3 metres height. There is a pathway on the southern side of the said property, which is the only access for the plaintiff to reach the main road. The pathway was in existence and used by the plaintiff and his predecessor in title for more than the statutory period and there is no ingress and aggress except the pathway. The defendants have no right to obstruct the plaintiff’s pathway. Since the defendants attempted to obstruct the right, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. Pending suit the defendants constructed a building obstructing the access of the plaintiff to reach the road. The constructed portion shown as 2 nd item and the plaintiff also claimed removal of the above said construction. 6. Case of the Defendants The southern portion of the plaintiff’s property is a poramboke in S.No.2274 to an extent of 0.19.0 ares belonged to the Government and there is a road in it. As per order of the District Collector, a school building was constructed by the Uthampalayam Panchayat union in 0.02.0 ares out of the said 0.19.0 ares. The entire 2 nd item of property is poramboke land and the exclusive property of the government, the defendants have all right to construct a building in it. As per order of the District Collector, a school building was constructed by the Uthampalayam Panchayat union in 0.02.0 ares out of the said 0.19.0 ares. The entire 2 nd item of property is poramboke land and the exclusive property of the government, the defendants have all right to construct a building in it. There is no obstruction for the public in using the road. On the southern side of plaintiff’s property, there is 20 feet breadth pathway. The plaintiff falsely averred that the building caused obstruction for his ingress and egress to reach the road. Hence, the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is vexatious one and liable to be dismissed. 7. During trial, on the plaintiff side, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and nine exhibits Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. On the defendants' side, D.W.1 was examined and eleven exhibits were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11. In addition, advocate/commissioner’s report and sketch were marked as Ex.C.1 and ExC.2. 8. The trial Court/District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam framed the following four issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction in respect of 1 st item of suit property? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction in respect of 2 nd item of suit property? (3) Whether the plaintiffs averment that he has right of access from any of point of 1 st item to reach the southern side road is correct? (4) whether the plaintiff’s averment that the plaintiff could not be able to enjoy the pathway to reach the road is correct? (5) To what other the relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 9. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, concluded that the plaintiff has proved his case and decreed the suit, granting permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for by passing a judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2007 and directing the defendants to remove obstruction within 2 months. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10 of 2005, the defendants preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthampalayam. 11. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, and after perusing the case records, came to the conclusion that the 1st item is absolute property of the plaintiff and the 2 nd item building, is situated in government poramboke, hence, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, and after perusing the case records, came to the conclusion that the 1st item is absolute property of the plaintiff and the 2 nd item building, is situated in government poramboke, hence, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The first Appellate Court granted the relief of permanent injunction whereas declined to grant mandatory injunction by passing judgment, dated 08.01.2010 and thereby, partly dismissed the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthampalayam. 12. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.10 of 2009, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been admitted on 03.03.2017 by framing the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the courts below are legally right in restraining the right of passage to a portion of the boundary line alone, when admittedly the entire property of plaintiff abuts the panchayat road? 2. Whether the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to the right of access from all points in the boundary line to the road lies on the south of plaintiff’s property is as a result of admission is irrelevant evidence as such the perverse finding is liable to be set aside under section 100 of CPC. 13. Both sides arguments were heard and their written arguments were also perused. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has mainly submitted that abutting south of plaintiff’s 1 st item of suit property, the 2 nd item building was constructed in a cart track by the defendants and the plaintiff has every right to access the road from any point of his property. The trial Court as well as the 1 st Appellate Court, correctly concluded the same. But, the first Appellate Court came into conclusion that the defendants established that the 2 nd item is though situated in a poramboke pathway, the defendants constructed their school building after getting a G.O in this respect, as the construction of the school is also for public purpose. Further, the first Appellate Court went on to conclude that the plaintiff has not challenged the said G.O. and also observed that the plaintiff has admitted that there is space having breadth of 11 ¼ feet available to reach the road. Further, the first Appellate Court went on to conclude that the plaintiff has not challenged the said G.O. and also observed that the plaintiff has admitted that there is space having breadth of 11 ¼ feet available to reach the road. The learned counsel submitted that those findings are irrelevant and further argued that, as per A.Register, the S.No.2274 was classified as cart track and once the government allotted the specific land for cart track, for the purpose of public use, it cannot be converted for any other purpose. It is trite principle of law that the house owners abutting the cart track have the right of access from any point of their house to reach the cart track. Moreover, it is his further submission that nobody has the right to diminish the length and breadth of the cart track by way of encroachment. Therefore, he st requested to set aside, the finding of the 1 Appellate Court and prays for restoration of the trial Court findings. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on the following citations: 1. 1994-1 Law Weekly 470 (O.N.Natarajan and Anr. /v/ The Municipal Council, Turaiyur), wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 as follows: “8. .....The owners of houses abutting on a public street have right of access to and from the public street and if anything is done by the municipality to interfere with the rights of such owners, the owners have an actionable claim.” 9. .....The owners of houses or premises abutting the roadway are entitled to have access to that roadway from all points on the boundary of their land and if any obstruction is caused over the road margin securing such access, the person entitled to have such an access can certainly enforce that right” 10. .....The suit street is a public street within the meaning of section 3(21) of the Municipality Act and the plaintiffs have a right of access to the suit street by reason of their ownership of the property abutting the public street and that the defendant is not entitled to put any fence or obstruction preventing the plaintiffs and his men from having access to the publics street, south of their property.” 2. 1995-1 Law Weekly 451 (Janarthanan /v/ State of Tamil Nadu), wherein it is held in paragraph No.9 as follows: “9. 1995-1 Law Weekly 451 (Janarthanan /v/ State of Tamil Nadu), wherein it is held in paragraph No.9 as follows: “9. .…it has been repeatedly held that the owner of the land adjoining the public street has got a right of access at every point where his or her land adjoins public street…..'' 3. 2019 (6) CTC 511 (Sundari /v/ Gandhi), wherein it is held in paragraph No.17 as follows: “…the portion encroached by the defendant forms part of the road and the plaintiff, the owner of the land abutting public street has got a right of access from every point of the land which abuts a public street. A right of the owner of the property abutting a public road or a public path to have access to the public road or public path from all point of his property that abuts the road cannot be denied.” 4. RLW 2007(4) RAJ 2900 (Vallabh Dharshan Hotel Pvt.Ltd. /v/ State of Rajasthan) , wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.44 and 45 as follows: ''44. …At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention that it is settled law that no one can deal with the property during pendency of t he suit and the property is required to be kept as it was on the date of the suit. If this proposition is stressed to mean that in case there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, even then merely on the ground the property during the pendency of the suit cannot be dealt with any party and is required to be protected in it state as it was in existence on the date of suit. 45. .....However, it is made clear that if the appellant-defendants will raise any construction over the property in dispute then they will have no equity in their favour and in case the plaintiff will succeed in their suit then the appellants-defendants shall not be entitled to any compensation and shall have to abide by the decree which may be passed in the suit.'' 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the dispute is only in respect of 2 nd item of suit property, in which a school building was constructed by the defendants. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the dispute is only in respect of 2 nd item of suit property, in which a school building was constructed by the defendants. Before UDR, there was a common pathway and the defendants constructed a school with an extent of 7.36 metres breadth and 20.19 metres in length, that too leaving sufficient space on the southern side of the plaintiff’s property. The school was constructed as per G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 20.08.2004, in which out of total extent of 0.19.0 ares 0.02.0 ares of poramboke was allotted for the school. The government has every right to allot poramboke land for a school building, which is also for public purpose, the 1st Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and came to correct conclusion by declining the mandatory injunction in respect of 2 nd item of the suit property. Therefore, he requested to dismiss this second appeal. 16. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material records of the case. It is an admitted fact that the 1 st item of suit property is the exclusive property of the plaintiff, which is situated abutting the public pathway, in S.No.2274. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of 1 st item of property and mandatory injunction regarding 2 nd item of property. The Courts below granted the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff. This second appeal is filed against the refusal of mandatory injunction by the 1 st Appellate Court. The defendants have not preferred any cross appeal against the relief of permanent injunction granted by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the same remains unchallenged and is hereby confirmed. The disputes revolved between the parties now is about the relief of mandatory injunction with respect to 2 nd item of suit property. 17. The defendants stated that S.No.2274 is a poramboke pathway and the defendants have every right to use a part of the same for constructing a school, which is also for public use. Moreover, as per G.O. passed by the Government, the defendants constructed the school building in the 2 nd item and the plaintiff has not challenged the said G.O. 18. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants constructed the school in the cart pathway in S.No.2274. Moreover, as per G.O. passed by the Government, the defendants constructed the school building in the 2 nd item and the plaintiff has not challenged the said G.O. 18. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants constructed the school in the cart pathway in S.No.2274. On perusal of records, the extract of A.register for the relevant survey number is produced and the same was marked as Ex.B1. The Ex.B1 clearly shows that the land measuring 0.19.0 ares is shown as government pathway. As per the citation relied on by the plaintiff side, it is very clear that the owners of houses or premises abutting the roadway are entitled to have access to that roadway from all points on the boundary of their land and if any obstruction is caused over the road margin securing such access, the person entitled to have such an access can certainly enforce that right. It is settled principle that a public road, including a cart pathway, cannot be used for any purpose other than its intended public use, even by the government or local bodies. The said principle is also reiterated in several decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. This Court held in a decision reported in AIR 1995 MAD 179 (K.V.K.Janardhanan / v/ State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) in paragraph No.9 as follows:- ''9. .......But, it is clear from the plaint allegations that the plaintiff as a public has claimed a right to the public road being owner of the adjoining land on the ground that the Government is bound to maintain the road as the 'road' and is not entitled to obstruct or put up any construction. Therefore, the mere fact that they have not asked for easementary right, his claim will not in any way be affected. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and that led to the miscarriage of justice........'' . Therefore, the mere fact that they have not asked for easementary right, his claim will not in any way be affected. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and that led to the miscarriage of justice........'' . Moreover, in a recent order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.153 of 2025, dated 06.01.2025 held in paragraph No.3(c), as follows:- ''3.(C) The learned single judge adjudicated the petition and ultimately vide judgment and order dated 18-10-2015, allowed the same holding as under:- “Since, property in question is a public pathway, therefore, it cannot be and could not have been declared as surplus land treating the same as holding of some agriculturists. Therefore, declaration of surplus land is without jurisdiction qua the land in question. Any compromise or settlement entered into between the revenue authorities and some of the villagers permitting the revenue authorities to allot the land of public pathway itself is without jurisdiction and ipso facto invalid and void ab initio.'' Therefore, it is very clear that a public pathway, including a cart pathway, cannot be diverted or used for any purpose other than its intended purpose as a pathway for public use, and the government cannot use it for other purpose. 20. The defendants constructed the 2 nd item of property during the pendency of the suit. Though the defendants stated that construction work was started in January 2005, the plaintiff filed the suit on 08.01.2005, challenging at the very beginning of action. Moreover, the commissioner’s report and plan, Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2, clearly show that the building was constructed during the pendency of the suit. The commissioner’s report and plan show some gap between the 1 st item and 2 nd item of the property, however, it is observed by the commissioner that there are 6 ½ feet between the eastern wall and the school. has committed an error in setting aside such finding that the government has right to alter the government poramboke pathway and such finding is not sustainable in law as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipality Act and also settled principle by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court as stated supra. 21. has committed an error in setting aside such finding that the government has right to alter the government poramboke pathway and such finding is not sustainable in law as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipality Act and also settled principle by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court as stated supra. 21. In the above adduced evidences, this court affirms the decision of the trial court that the 2 nd item of property is constructed in a cart pathway and the same is abutted to the plaintiff’s 1 st item of suit property and the construction of the 2 nd schedule school building therein infringed his right of access to and fro from his house. The argument of the defendants that there are other owners abutting the 2 nd item school building and they did not raise any objection, is immaterial. Any litigant who apprehends obstruction can move civil Court for his reddressal, the failure of other owners abutting the road, in not approaching the Court will not disentitle the litigant to get relief from the court. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the school building is constructed at 20.19 metres length and 7.36 metres breadth, he restricts his claim to an extent of 5 metres length x 7.36 metres breadth of western portion of 2 nd item, which is situated in front of 1 st item. Therefore, the submission put forth by the counsel for the plaintiff is also taken into note. 22. From the above facts and circumstances, the first Appellate Court committed an error in partly reversing the finding of the trial Court and the said finding needs to be interfered by this Court by way of second appeal. The citations relied on by the plaintiff are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The questions of law 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant herein. Thus, this second appeal succeeds. 23. In the result, i) The Second Appeal is allowed. ii)The judgment and decree, dated 08.01.2010 passed in A.S.No.10 of200 9 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, in partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 made in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthampalayam, is set aside. Thus, this second appeal succeeds. 23. In the result, i) The Second Appeal is allowed. ii)The judgment and decree, dated 08.01.2010 passed in A.S.No.10 of200 9 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, in partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 made in O.S.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthampalayam, is set aside. iii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.10 of2005 dated 30.03.2007 is restored, however, mandatory injunction is granted on the western portion of 2 nd item measuring 5 metre length (East – West) and 7.36 metres breadth (North – South) alone shown in Ex.C.2 - Plan and the defendants are directed to remove that extent within two months. iv) The Registry is directed to append the Ex.C.2 - Plan along with the decree in second appeal specifically marking the western portion of 2 nd item of suit property measuring 5 metres length and 7.36 metres breadth. No costs.