A disputed parcel is not part of a public street without evidence proving its identity.

The dispute concerned the fourth-schedule property in O.S. No. 204 of 2006.

The plaintiff, V. Ramiah, claimed title through his family’s succession and oral partitions, and sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction.

Defendants 1–3 contended that the disputed portion formed part of Pandithurai 3rd Street, allegedly widened using strips of adjoining land, including land in T.S. No. 305.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed it.

Defendants 1–3 brought the second appeal.

Separately, Ramiah appealed a Single Judge’s order permitting a water connection through the disputed land.

The appeals were heard together because they arose from the same property dispute.

1. Whether the suit for declaration was barred by limitation under Section 3 read with Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given the earlier notices and subsequent alleged interference.

2. Whether the fourth-schedule property was proved to form part of Pandithurai 3rd Street, including the alleged eight-foot strip, rather than being the plaintiff’s patta land.

3. Whether the plaintiff established title to the property, including the pleaded oral partitions of 1955 and 2004.

4. Whether the plaintiff was disentitled to declaratory and injunctive relief for allegedly suppressing the existence of Pandithurai 3rd Street.

5. Whether the First Appellate Court’s findings warranted interference in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires a court to dismiss a suit instituted beyond the prescribed limitation period; under Article 58, a suit for declaration must be brought within three years from when the right to sue first accrues, and successive violations of the same right ordinarily do not restart time [*State of Gujarat v. Kothari and Associates*, (2016) 14 SCC 761; *Khatri Hotels Private Limited v. Union of India*, (2011) 9 SCC 126].

A plaintiff seeking declaration must succeed on the strength of their own title, assessed on the evidence as a whole [*Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited*, (2014) 2 SCC 269].

A claimed public street must be established as to the identity and character of the particular land; the existence of a street in the locality alone is insufficient.

In a second appeal, interference is warranted where a substantial question of law justifies it; findings supported by the evidence and not shown to be perverse do not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC.

The defendants did not sufficiently correlate their documents or the alleged eight-foot strip with the fourth-schedule property.

The deeds’ boundary descriptions, the absence of supporting survey materials and the local authority’s report and revenue records—which recorded the relevant land as patta land, not as a public road—undermined their street claim.

The First Appellate Court had considered the plaintiff’s title documents and evidence; the appellants did not show that its findings were unsupported or perverse.

On limitation, although the 2002 notice showed an earlier dispute, the Court was not satisfied that the right to seek the specific declaration concerning the fourth-schedule property had unequivocally accrued then, rather than in light of the later events and alleged interference.

The allegation of suppression failed because the existence of the street was not concealed; the contested question was whether this particular land formed part of it.

It confirmed the First Appellate Court’s decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed S.A.(MD) No. 434 of 2011.

It allowed W.A.(MD) No. 749 of 2021, holding that the Single Judge’s order permitting a water connection through the plaintiff’s land required interference.

There was no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.