Concurrent decision rendered by two courts below upholding the claims of the respondent/plaintiff for a declaration of injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, is challenged by the appellants/defendants in this Second Appeal.

2. Plaintiff claimed a declaration as to his right to easement by grant and also by necessity over a pathway, a pond and a well, on the basis of the provisions made in Ext.A1 partition deed. The plaint property was one among the items covered by the partition deed (Ext.A1) entered by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff and defendants and a pathway (kannidavazhi), a pond and a well were left in common for all the sharers, is the case of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties were set apart to the share of his father and, later, on the basis of a gift deed executed by his father, he had exclusive right over the plaint schedule properties, according to the plaintiff. The defendants, who have obtained items of properties covered by Ext.A1 partition deed had blocked the kannidavazhi (B schedule) constructing new wall and they have also obstructed the plaintiff from using the well and pond, all of which were left in common under Ext.A1 p