(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, is the appellant in this second appeal.
(2.) The plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. The plaint B schedule is a road. According to the plaintiff, the plaint B schedule is a public road commencing from Arakkunnam West Colony road and terminates at the western boundary of the plaint A schedule property. Defendants 1 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The properties lie on the north of the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule road belongs to defendants 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaint B schedule road is a public road and that the defendants are causing obstructions to the plaintiff in the matter of using the plaint B schedule road. The plaintiff therefore claimed a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstructions to the plaintiff in the matter of using the plaint B schedule road as a public road to the plaint A schedule property. A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the obstructions caused by them to the user of the plaint B schedule road was also sought in the suit. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The contention raised by the defendants in the written statement was that the property described as the plaint B schedule road is part of the property owned by the defendants 1 and 2 and lies on the north of the plaint B schedule road. The case of the plaintiff that the plaint B schedule is a public road was denied by the defendants. The trial court, on an elaborate consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the plaint B schedule road is part of the property of defendants 1 and 2 covered by Ext. B3 assignment deed in their favour. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in this second appeal.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.