JUDGMENT : Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. 1. This appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:- 3.1. The suit is filed for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit property comprised in Survey No.187/2A ad measuring 81 cents situated at southern side of Vedaraniyam to Thenpulam main road. Originally the suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1969, from one Anjammal, W/o. Athirathinam. The plaintiff is the only legal heir to his father and after his demise, the plaintiff derived the title over the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records are also mutated in his name and he is paying revenue taxes regularly in his name. The respondents have no right, title or interest over the suit property. The plaintiff is also constructed shop premises in the land and as such the first defendant grudges for the same and obstructing the plaintiff’s shops tried to construct the building. The superior officer of the first defendant is the second defendant. If the construction is permitted to go on, it will affect the entire business of the plaintiff as such, he filed this suit for permanent injunction. 4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement and stated that the shops constructed by the plaintiff are situated in the Government porambokku land and those places are belongs to the first respondent and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. 4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement and stated that the shops constructed by the plaintiff are situated in the Government porambokku land and those places are belongs to the first respondent and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. In between the property belong to the defendants and the shops there is a place and the same is used by the general public for the time immemorial, in which already there was a hut and it was used as passenger shelter in the bus stop. It was dilapidated conditions and therefore the defendants decided to build R.C.C construction. In fact, the shops constructed by the plaintiff are situated in the porambokku land and as such except the said place no other place to construct the passenger shelter for the bus stop. Even before initiation of this suit, the plaintiff never caused any notice as contemplated under Sections 21, 231(1) and 232 of Tamil nadu Panchayat Act 1994. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and were marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner’s report and his plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On perusal of the material placed on record, both the oral and documentary evidences of the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.93 of 2002 and the same is also dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. As against which, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 6. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 12.09.2003, the following substantial question of law were formulated for consideration:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to apply judgment reported in 2001 (II) L.W.817 and 1987 (I) MLJ 409 especially when the lower appellate Court had categorically found that the judgments apply to the facts of the instant case and that the appellant is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to apply judgment reported in 2001 (II) L.W.817 and 1987 (I) MLJ 409 especially when the lower appellate Court had categorically found that the judgments apply to the facts of the instant case and that the appellant is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 2. Whether respondents can plead equity on the ground that the appellant has alternative right of way and that the offending constructions put up by them is liable to be protected?” 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants are present and they are reiterated the avernments set out in the plaint as well as the written statement. 8. Heard Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.Jagannadan, learned Government Advocate (CS) appearing for the respondents. 9. Initially the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. While pending the suit, the defendants constructed the shelter for the passenger in the bus stop. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the prayer for injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the defendants in the suit property. The suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and after his demise, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The patta and other revenue documents are issued in his name and the revenue records are mutated in his name and the plaintiff is paying the revenue dues regularly. 10. Whereas the first defendant ie., the Panchayat President and the second defendant i.e., the Commissioner of Panchayat, Vedaranyam Union have constructed passenger shelter for the bus stop near the shops owned by the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that part of the shops are constructed by the plaintiff in the land belongs to the defendants classified as Porambokku land. The passengers shelter has been constructed in the land belonging to the defendants classified as porambokku land. While pending the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit property. The report and the plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. According to the Advocate Commissioner’s report, there are thatched houses which are marked as 1 & 2 and between them there is a fencing which marked as 13. While pending the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit property. The report and the plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. According to the Advocate Commissioner’s report, there are thatched houses which are marked as 1 & 2 and between them there is a fencing which marked as 13. Near the same, there are status belonging to the political leaders and the flag post belonging to the political parties, which marked as 15 to 19 respectively. 11. According to the commissioner’s report and plan, the suit property comprised in survey No.187/2, situated on the southern side of the shelter for passengers. By resolution dated 01.10.1999, which is marked as Ex.B.7, under the Jawahar Village Development Scheme, a sum of Rs.37,000/- was alloted to construct shelter for the passenger for the bus stop. Accordingly, order was passed and funds were alloted under Ex.B.8. The said place is classified as porambokku land and in fact, in the said place already there was a shelter for the passenger in the bus stop. Roof was also put up by them and it was a thatched one and already it was in a dilapidated condition. Under the said scheme and also by an order, the defendants constructed shelter for passenger bus stop. The said place comprised in Survey No.185 and the same is classified as porambokku land and not belongs to the plaintiff. In fact, adjacent to the said shelter, statue of the political leaders, flag posts etc., are there. The plaintiff did not file suit to remove the same, except the shelter for the passengers. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant cited the judgment of this Court reported in 1987 (1) MLJ 409 in the case of Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam Vs. Raja Sundaram and 2 others, as follows:- “(A) Easement - owners of houses or premises abutting a roadway - Entitled to have access to that roadway from all points on the boundary of their land - such owners can enforce such right if obstruction is caused” In respect of the easementary right, this Court has held that the plaintiff entitled to have access to road. 13. 13. In the case on hand, the plaintiff had already constructed shop premises adjacent to the road in between the shop premises and other land, there is a porambokku land with survey No.185, in which the defendants constructed shelter for the passengers in the bus stop. It would not obstruct the path way of the plaintiff at any point. In fact, the shelter for the passengers has already there and the same was in dilapidated condition. Therefore, under the new scheme the defendants constructed the shelter for the passengers in the bus stop. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would not help the case on hand. 14. It is also seen that the shops as if claimed by the plaintiff are thatched portion but as per the Advocate commissioner’s report and plan it cannot be used for shop premises and the same are thatched house without roof and it is not at all used as the shop premises. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is false. While pending the suit, there was no interim order and hence the defendants constructed the shelter for the passengers in the bus stop and only on 07.02.2001, the application to amend the prayer was allowed. Though the prayer of removal of construction put up by the defendants, the said place classified as porambokku and it never belongs to the plaintiff and also it never obstructs the pathway of the plaintiff to reach his shops. The plaintiff and other persons, have encroached the land classified as porambokku by putting up small construction. Further the plaintiff never sought for any prayer to remove the flag post of the various political parties and statue of various political leaders situated near the shelter for the passengers. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the Courts below as such the Courts below have analyzed the evidences both the documentary and oral in detail, adduced by the parties and by giving cogent reasons, concluded rightly and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Be that as it may. All the substantial questions of law, formulated by this Court in this Second Appeal, are answered in favour of the defendants and as against the plaintiff. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Be that as it may. All the substantial questions of law, formulated by this Court in this Second Appeal, are answered in favour of the defendants and as against the plaintiff. 16. In fine, the Second Appeal stands dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below. No order as to costs.