Citation

Citation

2022(2) CTCOL 817

2023(1) MWN (civil) 1

2022(3) CTCOL 723

There is no requirement to approach this case from the stand point of right of easement. It is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that S. No. 42 is the only access to their property. Even assuming that the plaintiffs have an alternate access to their property, that does not mean that the plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to use a public street for ingress and egress to their property. The law on this issue is too well settled. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

S.A. No. 190 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

Decided On: 25.03.2022

Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil  Vs.  Pappayee and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/2918/2022