ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent instituted the suit to declare that he has easementary right to reach his lands in the property by walking on the A,B,C,D ridges, which were stated to be situated in the centre of the appellant’s land in Survey Nos. 461/8D, 8E, 9B and 9C. He also sought to establish his right to ride the cart on the lands in Survey Nos. 8E and 9C during the non cultivation period and as a consequential relief to pass a mandatory injunction restraining the appellant or his agent from using the right of the plaintiff. He further sought, as per the amended plaint, to pass a mandatory injunction to remove the barricades made by the appellant on the way shown in A point.

3. After written statement was filed and evidence was led, which included two Commission Reports, the Trial Court found that the respondent had failed to establish his right as claimed. It is further found that there was an alternate way to the respondent’s land.

4. The First Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court. Thereupon, the respondent carried the matter in the Second Appeal. The High Court, in Second Appeal, has reversed the concurrent findings of the courts and granted relief in the following manner:

“10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though disputed all other contentions, had not disputed the fact that the land belongs to the plaintiff is situated in adjacent to the land belongs to the defendant. The learned counsel for the respondents is more on the emphasis that the plaintiff was claiming cart track for the purpose of reaching his land, which cannot be provided in the absence of establishing any easementary rights to that extent. The defendant is not restraining the plaintiff from using the varapu for the purpose of reaching his land. However, the defendant is objecting the usage of the common pathway as cart track or as a road for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is permitted to utilize the pathway/varapu for the purpose of reaching his own agricultural land. There cannot be any serious objections on the side of the defendants also.

11. In view of the said submission, this Court is able to arrive a conclusion that the pathway/varapu, which is already in existence for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff is to be kept open for his usage and more specifically, to reach his agricultural lands. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff cannot claim any cart track or road for the purpose of reaching his agricultural land. The plaintiff is entitled to utilize the existing varapu/ridges for the purpose of reaching his land and to carry on his agricultural activities. Such an order is passed in the interest of both the parties concerned. In view of the fact that the appellant has established before this Court that he owns a land adjacent to the land belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to use the pathway/varaput for the purpose of reaching his land to carry on his agricultural activities peacefully and without any hindrance. The defendants also shall not cause any objections for the purpose of usage of varapu by the plaintiff for the purpose of reaching his land.

12. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur dated 29.01.1996 in AS No. 62/1992, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsiff, Jayamkondam dated 27.08.1991 passed in OS No. 446/1986 are set aside and the second appeal stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.”

5. We have heard Mr. S. Mahendran, learned counsel appearin