- (1.)This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, in A.S.No.551 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003 passed by the III Assistant Civil Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.1235 of 2000, which was one for declaration and for permanent injunction.
(2.)The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(3.)A r'esume of facts abslutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
(a)The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"i)for a declaration declaring that the defendant has got no right of access over the passage measuring 3' X 76 feet running into from South to North from Ayyavoo Naidu Street to the plaintiff suit property more fully described in the schedule hereunder;

ii)for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men, servants, agents or any other person or persons claiming through her from having any access over the passage at the western side of the house of suit property namely the passage measuring 3' X 76' feet running into from South to North from Ayyavoo Naidu Street to the plaintiff's suit property morefully described in the schedule hereunder'

iii)for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the opening and the door caused and put up by the defendant in the Western side wall of his property in between the house and gate in the middle of the passage, and

iv)to pay costs of the suit."

on the main ground that he purchased the suit property from one Vinayagam, vide sale deed-Ex.A4 dated 17.5.1991, who in turn purchased the suit property from one Chandra, vide sale deed-Ex.A3 dated 1.10.1981. The recitals in the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 10.12.1980 in favour of Chandra would unambiguously and unequivocally exemplify and demonstrate that the defendant-Thiruvengadam, who happened to be one of the vendors under it, should not have any ingress and egress through the suit passage; however, violating the same, he opened a door way abetting the suit passage and thereby violated the rights of the plaintiff.

(b)Per contra, the defendant filed the written statement challenging and impugning the averments in the plaint, which succinctly and precisely would run thus:

The defendant was the owner of certain extent of property, including the common suit passage and the same was sold to one T.S.Chandra vide sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 10.12.1980, wherein, the suit passage was specified and discribed as common passage, measuring 76 feet lengthwise and 3 feet breadthwise and in the sale deed executed in favour of Chandra, it was only mentioned as a common passage and not exclusive passage for Chandra alone or for Chandra's transferees. The negative prayer in the plaint cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the defendant would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(c)Whereupon issues were famed. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A16. On the defendant's side one Sekar was examined as D.W.1 and no document was filed on his side.

(d)Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed. Whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the original suit.