Judgment : 1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.422 of 1987 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras reversing the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.3414 of 1986 on the file of 18th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. The defendant who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The defendant who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff, the Madras Area Defence Services Co-operative House Construction Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) filed the suit for declaration and injunction alleging that the Society was formed in the year 1961; that its members are Ex-Servicemen, their wives and persons who are serving in the Defence Services; that at the instance of the Society, an extent of about 44 acres of land was acquired by the State Government and handed over to the Society for putting up houses for the benefit of its members; that lay-out and plan were approved and sanction was accorded to the Society to enable its members to put up houses; that there are roads in the lay-out which the Society has formed by spending its own money; that the roads are being maintained by the Society; that besides the roads, electricity lights are also put up and maintained by the Society; that drainage system also has been formed and maintained by the Society from out of its own funds; that the roads are all private roads belonged to the said Society; that public as such have no right to make use of the road as passage; that the roads belong exclusively for the benefit and use of the members of the Society only; that the defendant Komalavalli seems to have purchased some properties lying adjacent to the Societys lands; that the Society has after formation of the roads has put up fence at the terminal point of its property; that the defendant who has purchased adjacent property has no right to make use of the roads belonging to the Society; that the defendant in her attempt to make use of the road has tampered with the enclosures put up by the Society at the terminal of the road; that the attempt on the part of the defendant to encroach upon the roads is illegal; that the defendant has no right to have access through the roads belonging to the Society and in view of the hostile attitude taken by the defendant, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration that the roads situated within the suit property are private roads belonging to the Society; that the defendant or others have no right to make use of the roads and consequentially for an injunction preventing the defendant and others from trespassing into the roads or from tampering with the enclosures put across the roads. 3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the roads in the lay-out of the defence colony formed by the respondent Society, has become vested with the Panchayat; that they are public roads; that the defendant has purchased a plot adjoining the defence colony; that she has put up a house therein; that she is entitled to make use of the roads in the lay-out of the defence colony for having access to her plot; that the defence colony society has put up a fence preventing outsiders to use the roads; that the Society has no right to do so and that the Society is not entitled for declaration of its title or any injunction against the defendant. 4. Three other suits were filed by persons who are having plots or lands adjacent to the lay-out of the plaintiffs Society, asserting their right to make use of the roads in the lay-out and contending that those roads are all public roads within the meaning of the Panchayat Act and that they have a right to use to them. All the four suits happened to be disposed of by two Assistant Judges. Out of four suits, one suit ended in favour of the Society and three suits were decreed against the Society. The Society therefore preferred three appeals and the person who lost as against the Society also filed an appeal. All the four appeals were heard and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned IV Additional City Civil Judge, Madras. It was held in the appeals that the roads in the lay-out are all private roads belonging to the Society; that they have not become vested with the Panchayat; that there is no dedication of the roads to the public; that the Panchayat also has not acquired any right as such and that therefore the respondents have no right to make use of the roads as public roads and thus decreed the suits in favour of the Society. While the three other persons who opposed the Societys Claim have not preferred any appeal. Komalavalli, the defendant in O.S.No.3414 of 1986 alone has preferred this Second Appeal. 5. While the three other persons who opposed the Societys Claim have not preferred any appeal. Komalavalli, the defendant in O.S.No.3414 of 1986 alone has preferred this Second Appeal. 5. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration: .(1) Does the definition of ‘Public Roads’ found in the Panchayat Act contemplate any dedication in favour of the Panchayat, to consider the roads as Public Roads. .(2) Does the Roads, Parks, School, etc. shown in the lay-out plan and sanctioned by the Panchayat belong to the Promoters or to the Panchayat at the end of the sale of the plots. .(3) Whether the findings of the first appellate court is correct in view of the admission made by P.W.1 to the effect that the roads are being used by members, who does not belong to the colony, and also Ex.D-4 the approved plan of the house of the appellant which clearly shows that the accessibility to the said house is only through the said roads. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the suit roads, situated inside the defence colony are public roads within the meaning of the Panchayats Act; that they have become vested with the Panchayat and that therefore the plaintiffs claim for declaration as private roads belonging to the Society, cannot be granted. It is also stated that even when the Society applied for approval of the lay-out plan, they provided for public roads, schools, parks and other places intended for public use and that therefore all those public places must be deemed to have become vested with the Panchayat and the promoters or the Society cannot claim exclusive right to make use of those public places. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that P.W.1 examined on the side of the plaintiff has admitted that the said roads are being used by the public as such without obstruction. It is finally contended that in Ex.D-4 approved plan of defendants construction, the suit roads are indicated as access roads and therefore they are public roads and the defendant must be permitted to have access to the same. 7. It is finally contended that in Ex.D-4 approved plan of defendants construction, the suit roads are indicated as access roads and therefore they are public roads and the defendant must be permitted to have access to the same. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, would contend that the entire extent of about 44 acres of land was acquired by the State Government at the instance of the Society under Land Acquisition Act and handed over to the Society and the Society has become the owner of the property and no doubt the members have been permitted to put up houses in the layout according to the plans and roads and other places have been earmarked in the lay-out which belong only to the society as such and they are all private property and these roads can never be called as public roads. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that 44 acres of land, situated in the Nandambakkam Panchayat Union limits, has been acquired by the State Government at the instance of the Society for the purpose of constructing houses for its members and after acquisition it has been handed over to the Society. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that the entire extent of 44 acres of land, wherein the Societys Colony has come up, absolutely belongs to the Society and its members. The Society in turn has allotted plots to various members, who have been permitted to put up buildings, namely, residential houses in the colony. So, the entire property is private property belonging to the Society and its Members. Only for the benefit of the Society and its members, roads have been formed so that the members can have access for their buildings and houses. It is with regard to these roads, the present controversy has arisen. It is also not in dispute that the roads were formed, laid down and maintained by the funds of the Society and the Panchayat or any other local body is not spending even a single pie for its up-keep and maintenance. It is also stated by the Society, which is not refuted by the other side, that the Society maintains its own drainage scheme for which also the Panchayat is not spending any amount. It is also stated by the Society, which is not refuted by the other side, that the Society maintains its own drainage scheme for which also the Panchayat is not spending any amount. It is further stated that even the electric lines passing through the roads inside the colony belong to the Society and the supply of electricity is directly taken at one point but actually passed on to houses and consumers by the Society itself. It is under such circumstances the Society has come forward with a suit for declaration stating that the roads within the lay-out are all private roads belonging to the Society and its members and persons who are non-members cannot make use of it because these roads are not public roads. The Private Road and Public Road are defined in Sec.2 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 and the same definition is found in the new Act, which has subsequently come into force. Sec.2(27) of the Act reads as follows: “‘private road’ means any street, road, square, Court, alley, passage, cart-tract, foot-path or riding path which is not a ‘public road’, but does not include a pathway made by the owner of premises on his own land to secure access to, or the convenient use of, such premises;” Sec.2(28) of the Act reads as follows: “‘public road’ means any street, road, square, Court, alley, passage, cart-tract foot-path or riding-path, over which the public have a right of way, whether a thoroughfare or not, and includes- .(a) the roadway over any public bridge or causeway; .(b) the footway attached to any such road, public bridge or causeway; and .(c) the drains attached to any such road, public bridge or causeway, and the land, whether covered or not by any pavement, veranda, or other structure, which less on either side of the roadway upto the boundaries of the adjacent property whether that property is private property or property belonging to the State or Central Government.” So, a public road has been defined as a pathway or a road where a public as a matter of right have got right to use. Only such public roads become vested with the Panchayat or any other local body as the case may be. Only such public roads become vested with the Panchayat or any other local body as the case may be. No doubt, it is true that private roads also can be vested with Panchayat if there has been dedication on the part of the owner as public road. So far as the present case is concerned, the roads were formed and maintained by the Society from out of its own funds and they have formed the roads and maintaining the same only for the benefit of the society and its members and it is not meant for public as such. A road, which is formed in a private property and so long as it is not dedicated as a public road nobody can claim as a matter of right a right to pass through the road to make use of the same as a pathway. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended based on the approved plan that the Society has undertaken to provide these roads as public roads and only on that undertaking the lay-out was approved and therefore they cannot now go back and contend that these roads are private roads. The alleged lay-out sanctioned plan, showing the lay-out or showing the location of roads is not produced. No attempt was made on the part of the defendant to sent-for the said document either from the Society, namely, the plaintiff or from the Panchayat or from the Town Planning Authorities. The plaintiff also has thought it fit not to produce the layout plan. Even assuming for a memoment that in the lay-out plan these roads are mentioned as public roads, unless they are transferred to the Panchayat by way of a gift deed or by dedication, they will not become automatically Panchayat Roads and they will not also automatically been with it. So, unless the roads are vested with the Panchayat, the persons, who are third parties, cannot claim as a matter of right to make use of the said roads. 9. Thelearned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to certain resolution passed by the Panchayat. As per the said resolution, the suit property has also been taken over by the Panchayat. The suit road is a private road, formed by the Society, for the benefit of its own members and not meant for public use. 9. Thelearned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to certain resolution passed by the Panchayat. As per the said resolution, the suit property has also been taken over by the Panchayat. The suit road is a private road, formed by the Society, for the benefit of its own members and not meant for public use. In fact, at the time when the society was formed, the lay-out was prepared only for the purpose of putting up houses for its members and at that time there was no lay-out for the adjoining areas. Therefore, once these roads are private roads formed as such by the Society, unless they become vested with the Panchayat, no one can claim that they are public roads. The Panchayat seems to have passed a resolution somewhere in 1972 stating that from 10. 1972 the roads belonging to the Society shall be vested with the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any provision in the Panchayats Act, by which Panchayat is empowered to take away the property of any individual or Society and declare it as a public property. There is not dedication on the part of the owner, namely, the Society. The Panchayat has so far not spent even a single pie for the up-keep and maintenance of the suit road. Therefore, there is no authority on the part of the Panchayat to chose to declare that it is taking over the private roads belonging to the plaintiff Society. Moreover Ex.A-7 is copy of the resolution above referred to. But, immediately after passing of this resolution, the matter has been taken to the District Collector, who seems to have sent Ex.A-8 communication to the Panchayat, asking it to have a fresh look into the matter, obviously because the Collector must have felt that the Panchayat has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such a resolution. After this, the Panchayat has rescinded the earlier resolution Ex.A-7 by Ex.A-9 and stated specifically that so far as the disputed roads are concerned, status quo ante to 10. 1972 shall, be maintained, which means the roads will continue as Private Roads. Therefore, the Panchayat itself has acknowledged that the disputed roads are not public roads; that they have not become vested with it and that the roads belonged to the plaintiff Society. 10. 1972 shall, be maintained, which means the roads will continue as Private Roads. Therefore, the Panchayat itself has acknowledged that the disputed roads are not public roads; that they have not become vested with it and that the roads belonged to the plaintiff Society. 10. The only contention on the basis of which the appellant seeks to resist the declaration prayed for by the plaintiff is on the ground that the roads have vested with the Panchayat. But, the abovesaid resolution would show that these roads have not become vested with the Panchayat and there was no dedication. 11. It is true that in the case of lay-out relating to private property, usually sanction is accorded by the Local Authorities or by the Town Planning Authorities, which would insist, upon leaving space for use of the public by way of public road, school, park and other places of public resort. But, even if these conditions are stipulated, automatically those places ear-marked in the plan for such public purpose will not become vested with the local bodies. Before final approval is granted, the owner should be directed to execute gift deed in favour of the concerned Municipality, so that the roads and other public places will become vested with the local body, which will thereafter own those places and also maintain them by spending its money. Therefore, unless the private parties to whom those roads belong execute conveyancing deed in favour of the panchayat, there is no power under the Panchayats Act for the Panchayat or to other local bodies to declare such roads as public roads. Therefore in the absence of such roads becoming vested with the panchayat, in the absence of any deed of dedication on the part of the society, which is admittedly the owner of the property, the appellant cannot resist the respondent in claiming that the roads in dispute are all private roads owned by the society and meant for the use of its members only. The learned Additional Judge has correctly assessed the evidence and has discussed the points of law and has come to the correct conclusion that the suit roads are only private roads, over which the defendant cannot claim any right. It is only on such findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed as prayed for. The learned Additional Judge has correctly assessed the evidence and has discussed the points of law and has come to the correct conclusion that the suit roads are only private roads, over which the defendant cannot claim any right. It is only on such findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed as prayed for. I do not find any justification or reason for deviating from the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Additional Judge and therefore all the substantial question of law, raised in this appeal, are answered against the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, however without costs. Consequently C.M.P.Nos.15030 and 17140 of 1988 are closed.