Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes

Madras High Court addressing disputes over the ownership and encroachments on a 2-foot-wide North-South Lane situated between adjoining properties. Justice R. Sakthivel ruled that the disputed lane is a common pathway, granting both plaintiffs and defendants easementary rights for its use, while rejecting claims of exclusive ownership.

The High Court held: "A common lane cannot be exclusively owned or encumbered by any party. Encroachments on such pathways give rise to recurring causes of action, and suits seeking their removal are not barred by limitation."

The appellants, A. Murugesan and M. Pushpavathi, filed two separate suits before the Trial Court seeking relief over the disputed lane:

O.S. No. 43 of 2005 sought a declaration of title, removal of encroachments, and mandatory injunction to fix the lane's boundaries.
O.S. No. 501 of 2005 sought an injunction against a General Power of Attorney holder, T. Sugumar, from disturbing possession or alienating the disputed lane.
The appellants alleged that the defendants had encroached on the lane by constructing a compound wall and toilet. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the requested reliefs. However, the First Appellate Court, reversing the Trial Court's decisions, dismissed the suits on the ground that they were barred by limitation under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the encroachments allegedly occurred decades earlier.

The plaintiffs then filed these second appeals, challenging the dismissal.

The High Court examined the sale deeds and gift deeds (Exhibits A1 to A6) and noted that the 2-foot-wide North-South Lane was originally created by the property's predecessors for the common use of owners in the layout. The court found:
The western boundary of the plaintiffs' property and the eastern boundary of the defendants' property described the lane as a common path.
No party could claim absolute title over the lane. Both parties only had easementary rights for its use as a pathway.
The court ruled:
"The 2-foot North-South Lane is a common pathway for mutual use by both parties, and no one has the right to encroach, alienate, or exclusively claim ownership over it."

The High Court disagreed with the First Appellate Court’s finding that the suit was barred by limitation. It emphasized that disputes involving encroachments on common pathways create recurring causes of action.

Citing Article 135 of the Limitation Act, the court held:
"Encroachments on a common lane, if proved, are liable to be removed irrespective of when they were made. Suits relating to pathways and easementary rights are not barred by limitation due to the recurring nature of the cause of action."

In S.A. No. 155 of 2018, the court addressed the validity of a General Power of Attorney executed by some defendants over the disputed lane. The court found the document void ab initio, as the defendants did not have any title or ownership rights over the common lane.

The court held: "A General Power of Attorney cannot confer rights over common property where the executors themselves lack ownership. Such encumbrances are void and unenforceable."

The court directed the demarcation of boundaries for the disputed lane based on the registered documents (Exhibits A1 to A6) and the Advocate Commissioner’s reports. It ruled:
"If encroachments are identified after demarcation, they shall be removed in accordance with the law. A lane must be used exclusively as a pathway and not for construction or encroachments."

Decision: Appeals Allowed, Trial Court Decrees Modified S.A. No. 154 of 2018:
The First Appellate Court's judgment and decree were set aside.
The Trial Court's decree was modified to:
Declare the North-South Lane as a common pathway with easementary rights for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Prohibit any construction or encroachment on the lane by either party.
Direct the demarcation of boundaries for the lane, with encroachments, if any, to be removed as per law.
S.A. No. 155 of 2018:
The First Appellate Court's judgment and decree were set aside.
The Trial Court's decree was modified to grant:
A permanent injunction against T. Sugumar, restraining him from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession or alienating the lane based on the void General Power of Attorney.
The High Court ordered that both parties may use the lane for its intended purpose as a common pathway and directed them to bear their own costs.

The Madras High Court’s judgment underscores the principle that common property rights cannot be unilaterally claimed or encumbered by any party. The ruling clarifies that pathway disputes involve recurring causes of action, thereby protecting the rights of co-owners or users from being extinguished by the passage of time.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2025